Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Creative and Arts Education

Doug Naysmith: If she will make a statement on her plans for improving creative education and arts education in schools.

Kim Howells: We are trying to ensure that all young people, whatever their means and background, have access to high-quality arts and creative education. We are working closely with various partners, including the Department for Education and Skills, the Arts Council of England and the National Foundation for Youth Music, on a range of policies to deliver that.

Doug Naysmith: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am familiar with the work of Multi A in Bristol, which comes into the category catered for by a couple of the bodies that he mentioned. It certainly does good work in Bristol; I know that it would appreciate more funding, and I understand that the Minister is aware of that. Will he visit Bristol soon so that I can show him work in progress and further plans, especially in the context of Bristol's bid to become European city of culture in 2008?

Kim Howells: I will certainly visit Bristol, which has always been one of my favourite cities. Multi A is making a tremendous contribution to encouraging Bristol schoolchildren, often from difficult backgrounds, to experience the arts, including dance, choral singing and the visual arts. I was glad that its director, Vic Ecclestone, received an MBE in the Queen's birthday honours list. My Department is encouraging the funding agencies to ensure that Multi A has sufficient funds to allow it to continue to operate over the next three years.

National Football Stadium

Peter Pike: What discussions she has had with those involved in the building of a new national football stadium for England.

Tessa Jowell: In the light of the Football Association's announcement on 1 May, the Government have asked Patrick Carter to conduct a review of the English national stadium project to examine whether it can be funded and managed at Wembley or, if that proves impractical, at another location in England. We expect to receive his report in late August, and I shall meet the key stakeholders shortly after.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that for many years I have pressed for a new national stadium for both football and rugby league. Whatever facilities there are in other parts of the United Kingdom, there should be a national stadium in London, preferably at Wembley. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Football Association and others have messed about with this and that it is becoming something of a fiasco? People in the football world want a solution as soon as possible.

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend has long advocated the case for Wembley, but the fact is that the projected costs of the project more than doubled during the planning stage. The FA has so far not been able to develop an effective business plan, nor has it secured any substantial financial backing. The Government support the FA's desire for a modern national stadium. However, the prime mover is the FA; the Government, in this context, are not a walking cheque book or a stadium developer. We must remember that any cost overruns that require public funding, often running into millions, represent money not spent on refurbishing inner-city sports facilities for our children who want the chance to be the champions of the future.

Nick Harvey: In view of the continuing questions about Wembley or any other national football stadium and the linked problems with Pickett's Lock, does the Secretary of State not think it time that the Government took responsibility for taking the key decisions about whether we will bid for prestigious games? Do not the legacy of the Sheffield student games and the possible deficit of the Manchester Commonwealth games, and now the embarrassment of finding a stadium for the 2005 world athletics championships, mean that the Government should take decisions about whether we are going to bid for prestigious games? They should decide whether or not we have the resources to hold them; they should take responsibility and drive them through from start to finish.

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that any sports project on the scale of Wembley or Pickett's Lock can proceed only with Government support, but not, in every case, with Government as the principal or even substantial funder. There will always be infrastructure and other planning issues that require Government support to resolve them.

Tony Banks: If we are just talking about a national football stadium, it could be anywhere in the country; it does not have to be at Wembley. But if we are talking about a national stadium for athletics, and given that, as Beijing has now been nominated to hold the 2008 Olympic games, London could possibly be a candidate city for a later Olympic games, we have to look again at the deck solution for providing athletics facilities there. Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether or not she has ruled out, or whether she has an open mind about, the original design, which involved a deck proposal for athletics at Wembley?

Tessa Jowell: Patrick Carter's review is considering all options, but I am advised that any proposal to link a possible development at Wembley with the world athletics championships would be impractical, because a stadium would not be ready on time.

Peter Ainsworth: I warmly welcome the right hon. Lady to her new responsibilities, and I wish her well and certainly better luck than, her immediate predecessor, whom I am delighted to see in his place this afternoon.
	Does the right hon. Lady agree that of all the problems that have landed on her desk since taking up her appointment—the dome, falling lottery sales, regional arts funding and the Minister for Sport's views on tennis—the most pressing by far is the crisis over Wembley? I am in danger of agreeing with the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), but was it not wrong to kick athletics out of the Wembley plans, putting at risk £120 million of lottery funding and Britain's ability to host the 2005 world athletics championships? Does she agree that, if we wave goodbye to those championships, we can wave goodbye to hosting the Olympics for at least a generation?

Tessa Jowell: I do not accept that Wembley is the biggest issue facing me or my ministerial team. The biggest issue facing us is implementing the promises that we made to the people of this country on being re-elected on 7 June, key among which is getting sport back as part of the life of every child in the country and encouraging a generation of young sportsmen and women on to the ladder of success and opportunity; and the big sporting projects—whether Wembley, Pickett's Lock or any other—must be part of that strategy, not a distraction from it.

Sports Coaching Facilities

Ian Gibson: What plans she has to improve coaching facilities throughout the United Kingdom in all sports.

Richard Caborn: The development of coaching and coaching facilities is mainly the responsibility of a number of organisations, which receive Government funding, including the national governing bodies of sport, the Sports Council, UK Sport, Sport England and Sportscoach UK. The Government's plan for sport also includes a range of initiatives to provide significant new investment in coaching and coaching education, which will assist the grass roots and clubs. The coaching taskforce, which aims to initiate action to improve coaching at all levels, had its first meeting on 28 June.

Ian Gibson: I start by assuring my right hon. Friend that his success in his new position will not depend on being able to answer pub-style questions. All he need know are the names of the manager and the coach of the all-conquering parliamentary football team—that is good enough. Will he seriously support a programme of major investment in coaching for all our schools and communities, based not just on producing superstars, but on developing the performance, skills, prowess and, indeed, enjoyment of everyone in our schools and communities?

Richard Caborn: As my hon. Friend suggests, it is very important that we get the coaching right. That is why we look to the taskforce to produce recommendations. We are already committed to a programme of investment to create 3,000 full-time paid coaching posts by 2005, but I hope that when the report is produced in, I think, March next year, we will be able to have a debate in this place, or at least in the Select Committee or a Standing Committee.
	I do know who the coach of the all-party football club is—it is none other than my hon. Friend himself, so there was a little self-promotion in the question. May I give my hon. Friends some advice? Do not take part in pub quizzes on the radio; it is very dangerous. Still, I am more likely to get the answers to pub quizzes right than the Conservative party is to pick a leader who will win it the next general election.

Nick Hawkins: Despite the new Minister's protestations, does he not recognise that what he most needs are coaching and knowledge in relation to his responsibilities? Does he not recognise that, in the eyes of the entire sporting media and the entire population, he shot himself in both hands and feet before even reaching his first Question Time? Will he not further recognise that his attempt to rehabilitate himself in this weekend's Daily Telegraph was a case of not getting the name of one of England's recent rugby heroes right and of pretending that he organised a Lords and Commons cricket tour in 1995? That showed great disrespect to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who actually knows something about sport—[Interruption.]—and as Max Boyce, another rugby legend of whom the Minister has probably never heard, would say, "I know because I was there"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Richard Caborn: I take no lectures from Conservative Members about sport and participating in sport. Yes, I played cricket with the hon. Gentleman in South Africa and, if he examines the record to which he has just referred, he will find out who exactly organised the tour.

Lottery Funding (Good Causes)

Phil Hope: If she will make a statement on her assessment of Camelot's ability to deliver its projected funding for good causes.

Tessa Jowell: The National Lottery Commission made it clear, when it awarded the licence to Camelot in December, that it thought both bidders—Camelot and The People's Lottery—were over-optimistic in their sales projections. The commission's best estimate is that sales will be maintained at their current levels of around£5 billion a year, which would mean more than £10 billion for good causes over the duration of the next licence. Of course, everyone will be delighted if Camelot achieves more than that, but that is partly in its gift and partly depends on the confidence that the British public have in the lottery.

Phil Hope: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcome her to the Dispatch Box. There is a concern that there might be a shortfall in the amount of money available from Camelot going into good causes. The Furniture Turnaround project in my constituency applied to the community fund; as it is a marvellous project, everyone agreed that it should receive the money. However, not enough money was available and that was because not enough money was coming from Camelot. Will my right hon. Friend press Camelot to make sure that, in years to come, a good proportion of the moneys that it raises goes into local good causes, because those good causes raise people's confidence in the lottery itself?

Tessa Jowell: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. Every single constituency has benefited from lottery funding, and it requires the powerful advocacy of individual Members of Parliament to secure the maximum available for their constituents.

Chris Smith: May I give my warm congratulations to my right hon. Friend on taking up what is undoubtedly the best job in government? She will find that it has its ups and downs but that she has the potential to make a real difference to the lives of millions of people in this country. In that context, whatever the sum of money raised for good causes by the national lottery, will she give a firm commitment that the percentages within that sum for the arts, sport, heritage and charities will be maintained throughout the period of the current franchise?

Tessa Jowell: I can certainly give that undertaking to my right hon. Friend, whom I thank. I know that the House will want to pay tribute to his outstanding period as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. As he will know, because he was responsible for renegotiating it, there will be a realignment of the amount allocated to each of the beneficiaries when the millennium fund ceases and the funds currently allocated to the millennium fund are allocated to the new opportunities fund, whose share will rise to 33 per cent. of the total.

Tourism Industry (Foot and Mouth)

Tony Baldry: What assessment she has made of the impact of foot and mouth disease on the number of overseas visitors to Britain.

Kim Howells: The number of overseas visits to the United Kingdom was estimated to have fallen by 6 per cent. in the three months from March to May 2001 compared with the same period last year. My predecessor as Minister had planned to address a loss of this nature when awarding the British Tourist Authority an extra £14.2 million this year. Its strategy is to stimulate the recovery of inbound tourism, and I am confident the benefits of this initiative are now emerging.

Tony Baldry: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I am not sure that he appreciates that another Department is seeking to claim back 17.5 per cent. in supposed VAT payments out of the £14.2 million that his Department has made available to the British Tourist Authority. That seems somewhat bizarre.
	Will the Minister take this opportunity to make two announcements? First, will he confirm that the British Tourist Authority will receive the full £14.2 million? That is what it believed it would receive and it seems only fair that it should receive it. Secondly, for those of us who represent English constituencies, there is some concern that the English Tourism Council does not have a marketing function. Will the Minister give an undertaking that it can have such a function and will receive a fair share of the benefit of that £14.2 million?

Kim Howells: First, I was surprised to hear that VAT payments had not been factored in. It was certainly a miscalculation on the part of the British Tourist Authority, and we are looking closely at that. Secondly, there is no question but that foot and mouth disease has severely tested present marketing arrangements. Marketing is the responsibility of regional tourist boards and, latterly, regional development agencies. We will be working very hard with them and the English Tourism Council to ensure that there are no inadequacies or slippages in the marketing of English regions in this country.

Lindsay Hoyle: Would my hon. Friend consider the introduction of grants to local authorities where tourism has been affected by foot and mouth? In that way, we would know that the money was going to constituencies that have been directly affected.

Kim Howells: We are working closely with local authorities to ensure that deferments of rates, for example, do not become a burden that they cannot stand. I very much hope that the considerable packages that we have made available will see local authorities and indirectly, businesses through what promises for some to be a very hard winter.

Peter Ainsworth: I welcome the new Minister for tourism to the Front Bench. He has got off to a slightly ropy start. It was not the British Tourist Authority that put out press releases about £14.2 million, but his Department—without any reference to VAT.
	Does the Minister understand why the insensitive and ill-timed insults—talk of slave wage rates and rip-offs—that he levelled at the tourism industry recently have caused such outrage? With tourism facing a £5 billion shortfall in revenue this year, investment falling and thousands of jobs at risk, do not people in the tourism industry have a right to expect some support from the Minister responsible? Will he therefore take this opportunity to redeem something of his reputation and apologise to the industry for his remarks?

Kim Howells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that I have some reputation left. The article to which he referred—he clearly has not read it; he has never heard of the thing—appeared in Caterer and Hotelkeeper. His comments are clearly driven by the same geniuses who proposed the last Conservative manifesto.
	The editor of the publication, David Harris, said that the
	"article makes clear his"—
	that is, my—
	"commitment to the tourist industry, expressing views held by many when he says the tourist industry must raise its game. FMD has been a body blow, but we will regain our markets by competitive pricing and with a well motivated and trained workforce which delivers further improvements in quality."
	That is precisely what I believe. I do not think that the British tourist industry will survive on the basis of slave wages. I note that Conservatives always oppose minimum wages, and will always do so because they think that they can run the economy on the cheap. That is why people do not trust them, why they are down to the rump facing us, and why they will remain that rump until they change their views.

Lottery Funding (Thurrock)

Andrew MacKinlay: What proportion of lottery money has been (a) raised and (b) spent in Thurrock.

Richard Caborn: Up-to-date information on the proportion of lottery money raised is not available. As of 5 July 2001, the total number of grants awarded to Thurrock is 79, and they are worth just over £2.5 million.

Andrew MacKinlay: The last figures that I had showed that the number of lottery tickets purchased in my constituency was twice the national average. When I listen to such replies, I am reminded of the song:
	"It's the same the whole world over,
	It's the rich wot gets the pleasure,
	It's the poor wot gets the blame"—
	and the Minister knows what follows—
	"Ain't it all a ruddy shame?"
	There needs to be discrimination in terms of geography and class in the distribution of resources. The marketing policy is aimed at some of the poorest and most disadvantaged people in the country, which is wrong. However, if it is going to happen, there has to be funding discrimination in favour of the poorest places in our constituencies, too. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Richard Caborn: I thank my hon. Friend for that kind question. Camelot has carried out only one survey of ticket sales in each constituency, which it conducted on the fifth anniversary of the lottery. My hon. Friend is right: sales in his constituency were £60 million compared with the mean of about £30 million, and those figures are in the Library. The lottery distributors must develop a strategy to assess the needs of different areas. However, we must be careful if we are going to dispute the money based on the sales of lottery tickets. It is not entirely true that the better-off do not participate, because they do, and we would have to consider those figures as well.
	On 27 June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced £150 million for initiatives to secure a fairer share of lottery money for the 50 most deprived areas. We are trying to address the questions that my hon. Friend raises.

Sports Coaching Facilities

John Mann: What plans she has to increase the number of sports coaches in schools throughout the country.

Richard Caborn: We are currently carrying out a review of coaching in England, to which I referred earlier, with a view to professionalising it and to encouraging more people to consider coaching as a career option. In addition, the 1,000 school sport co-ordinators who will be in place by 2004 will have funding for, among other things, bringing sport-specific coaches into schools to coach pupils.

John Mann: Would the Minister consider extending the sports coaching provision to those disaffected 14 and 15-year-olds who often do not attend schools in my constituency? Should he need a town that is rich in sports heritage to pilot such a scheme, may I modestly offer Worksop in my constituency as exactly the kind of town that would benefit from such expansion?

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend is right. Sport is clearly a major help in addressing many problems such as truancy. Worksop is obviously doing a tremendous amount in the sporting world. I understand that Worksop football club is thinking about relocating, and the Lawn Tennis Association is also considering a development in Worksop. If he writes to me, my officials and I will consider whether a pilot scheme could be established in Worksop.

Humfrey Malins: Does the Minister agree that sport, especially team sport, for boys and young men in schools is important? I commend encouraging team sport among them to the Minister. With my judicial hat on, may I point out that young men who play a great deal of team sport are much less likely to turn to crime?

Richard Caborn: That is true. We need to determine how we can develop high-quality facilities with high-quality coaching, because the two go together. Coaching is essential if we are to attract more people to sport. Figures that I saw the other day show that 150,000 young people in France are being coached for tennis. Here in the UK, the number is 18,000. I think that things are the same right across the sporting spectrum, which is why, when we receive the report of the taskforce on coaching, we will give it serious consideration. I hope that there will also be a constructive debate in the House.

Caroline Flint: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Lawn Tennis Association has had many years to get its game together and improve young people's access to tennis? It is important that we provide coaching in schools, but there should be access to good tennis courts both inside schools and outside in local parks, so that children can take what they learn in school out into their community rather than have to go through private tennis clubs.

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This morning, I discussed with the Sports Council how to develop a strategy nationally and firm up delivery regionally and locally. That is what we shall be working on in the coming months and years. The statistics on tennis are startling: the Lawn Tennis Association says that a third fewer people now play tennis than played six years ago. I think that that is largely down to facilities not being in the right areas. We are considering those issues and we hope to have some answers soon.

John Greenway: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well.
	With the school holidays about to begin, will the right hon. Gentleman join me in urging parents, teachers and coaches to take every possible care and precaution to ensure the safety of children who take part in outdoor activities this summer? Does he agree that, for reasons of personal safety and physical fitness, every child should have swimming lessons and be able to swim by the age of 11? Sadly, as he knows, one in five children cannot swim by that age. We share a collective responsibility to put that right. Will he tell us when the national swimming facilities strategy will be published and what financial support the Government will give for a network of teaching pools throughout the country?

Richard Caborn: I cannot give a precise date for the report, but I take the issue extremely seriously—especially as a parent. Both my children could swim before they could walk; I took them swimming when they were babies, which was absolutely the right thing to do. We will strive to create facilities and provide coaching to the standard necessary to ensure that every child can swim.
	The little girl who drowned recently was a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Her funeral, which was held at the weekend, serves as a reminder of our responsibility to ensure that every child in this country can swim.

Gisela Stuart: May I recommend that my right hon. Friend visit Birmingham where, through the organisation Local Leagues, Birmingham university student coaches work with local primary and secondary schools to provide sports facilities outside school hours? In addition, I urge him to work more closely with local authorities to ensure that the sports facilities and fields that were sold under the Tory Government are restored to an appropriate state so that children, especially those in inner cities, can have access to sports fields and use the support available.

Richard Caborn: As my hon. Friend says, it is important to have such facilities. Playing fields were being sold off at a rate of 40 a month when we came to power in 1997 and I became Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning. With others, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), then Minister for Sport, I put into operation an effective veto by the sports councils on any application to sell off a playing field. I shall take a look at Birmingham; and I hope that, in future, we shall be able to restore some of the facilities that were taken away by the Conservative Administration.

Lottery Grants

Kevin Hughes: What plans she has to ensure an even geographical distribution of lottery grants.

Glenda Jackson: What measures she intends to promote the equitable geographical distribution of lottery funding.

Paul Goggins: What action she is taking to ensure an increase in the distribution of lottery funding to disadvantagedareas.

Tessa Jowell: I understand that you have linked questions 8, 12 and 13, Mr. Speaker. With permission,I shall answer all three together.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady linked the questions, not me.

Tessa Jowell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	The Government are determined to ensure that there is a fair distribution of funding throughout the country. We have directed distributors to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom have access to lottery funds. In addition, I have asked the community fund to target £100 million, and the new opportunities fund to target an additional£50 million of its funds, to 50 areas that are both deprived and have received less lottery funding than other parts of the country. The scheme will be UK wide and will begin in April 2002.

Kevin Hughes: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her new post, as, indeed, I welcome her answer. However, I have heard fine words before, from her predecessor. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the average for constituencies around the country is£14 million or thereabouts. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that his constituency received as little as £2.5 million. However, I have to tell the Secretary of State that my constituency had less than £1 million: the amount is £900,000 for Doncaster, North. That was despite the meetings and correspondence with my right hon. Friend's predecessors, which were all to no avail. Will my right hon. Friend now address the issue properly so that my constituents have a fair share of the money that they pay into lottery funding? In all fairness to her predecessors—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the Minister has enough to go on.

Tessa Jowell: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's analysis. He is right about the figures for his own constituency. Nationally, the average per capita award is just over £76 but my hon. Friend's constituency received less than £11 per head of population. That is why I made my recent announcement about the investment of£150 million in precisely such areas, not only so that the lottery is fair in its distribution but so that it produces benefits for some of our most deprived communities, many of which lack the high levels of organisation and so forth that are needed to develop lottery bids. I intend to put that help in place to ensure that my hon. Friend's constituents benefit from the lottery as they should.

Glenda Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She is entirely right: it is not only the amounts that go to the most deprived areas—certainly in London we have the largest number of such wards in the UK—but the difficulty experienced by many community groups in actually putting together a bid. Will she ensure that it is not as difficult to tap into her proposals to assist such communities as it is at present?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Yes, we are determined—as was my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—to ensure that the bureaucracy and administration of the lottery are as simple and as cheap as possible, consistent with efficiency. However, it is also worth comparing the per capita lottery spend of £286 per head in my hon. Friend's constituency of Hampstead and Highgate with the sum of just under £11 in Doncaster, North to which I referred earlier. That makes the case for the Government's announcement.

Paul Goggins: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks, but in my constituency, which has two of the 100 poorest wards anywhere in the country, projects have received a little more than £4 million over the past seven years—well below the average. In future, can my constituents who spend money on the lottery look forward to more of their cash coming back to fund activities in their own community?

Tessa Jowell: Yes.

Roy Beggs: I, too, welcome the right hon. Lady and her team to the Front Bench. Does she agree that a number of excellent projects that had attracted millennium lottery funding, such as the Gobbins Path project in my constituency, could not proceed because of the burden that was going to be placed on the sponsor—in this case, Larne borough council—and hence on its ratepayers? Will she examine those previously approved projects that did not proceed, and give consideration to alternative matching funding to enable those worthwhile projects to proceed at some time in the future?

Tessa Jowell: With respect, it would be a matter for the individual lottery distributors to reconsider any previously considered projects. I am sure that, as a strong advocate of his constituents and projects in his constituency, the hon. Gentleman will make sure that that step is taken if necessary.

Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State think that she might have fewer complaints from her own Back Benches about the distribution of lottery funds if the Government had stuck to the pledge that they gave in their July 1997 White Paper, in which they stated that they
	"don't believe that it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities"?
	Perhaps if the Government were raiding the lottery funds less for health, education and environment matters, which are Government responsibilities, the right hon. Lady would not be facing criticisms of the kind that she is justifiably facing now.

Tessa Jowell: The most important thing about the lottery is that it has the confidence of the British people, 70 per cent. of whom play the lottery. The priorities of the new opportunities fund—health, education and environment—are precisely the priorities to which people wanted their lottery spending to be devoted. We are doing what people asked us to do. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends support the Government's position. They know that in every one of their constituencies, there are about 21 lottery-funded projects improving the quality of life of their constituents.

Adam Price: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the recent University of Newcastle study which showed that in rural and disadvantaged areas, the community fund was responsible for providing up to 50 per cent. of the funding for voluntary and community groups. In the light of that, will the Minister explain why the Wales committee of the community fund is projecting a cut in expenditure of43 per cent. over a three-year period, compared to a reduction in the UK of 17 per cent? Why is there such a discrepancy? The cut will be devastating to the voluntary sector in Wales. Will the Minister today agree to reverse that decision? Otherwise her protestations about a fair distribution across the UK will seem hollow.

Tessa Jowell: I will not announce a reversal of that decision today, but I will study with care the research that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I will write to him once I have had time to consider both its conclusions and the figures that he gave the House this afternoon.

Derek Wyatt: My right hon. Friend will know that the longer a lottery exists, the less people play it. Hon. Members say that they would like much more local distribution of the spend on the lottery. Will my right hon. Friend consider the idea that 10 per cent. of the spend on a lottery ticket should stay in the local community in the first place without having to go to the centre and come back, a process the cost of which is substantial and unnecessary?

Tessa Jowell: I have made clear in my replies the Government's intention to make sure that every part of the country benefits as it should from lottery funds and lottery investment. There will be a review of the lottery in the next two years or so. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will submit their specific proposals for further improvement of the lottery in the next licence period, although that is some years hence.

Ofcom

Chris Grayling: When she plans to bring forward legislation to establish the proposed media regulator Ofcom.

Kim Howells: The Government introduced a paving Bill on 12 July which will establish Ofcom and enable it and the existing regulators to begin the preparations for the proposed new regulatory regime. Ofcom will receive no regulatory functions until the main communications Bill is enacted.

Chris Grayling: I have been approached in recent weeks by a number of my constituents expressing great concern about what they see as the deterioration in the standard of television material seen in prime time. Will the Minister give the House an undertaking that he will ensure that both Ofcom and the current regulators take strong action to reverse that trend and to ensure that the material that we see on our prime time television is acceptable?

Kim Howells: I would like very much to be able to do that. I cannot abide "Big Brother" and I would love it to be taken off our screens. However, I think the day when politicians and Whitehall officials decided what should be on television would be a very sad one.

Andrew Miller: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, especially as one of the people who wrote "Communicating Britain's Future", in which we argued the case for an umbrella organisation such as that which he announced. Has he closed his mind to broadening that umbrella or are the current suggestions about what should be included in Ofcom cut and dried?

Kim Howells: No, those suggestions are not cut and dried, and the umbrella is of an indeterminate size at the moment. I have not shut my mind to anything. If I knew what my hon. Friend was on about, I might be able to answer him more specifically.

Peter Ainsworth: We Opposition Members welcome honesty whenever we hear it from the Labour Benches, although some in the industry think that Ofcom might turn into Big Brother. Does the Under-Secretary accept that the paving Bill that appeared last week offers no practical benefit to the media and communications industry, whose ability to meet the rapidly changing world in which it operates is being impaired by regulations that have not changed for five years and will not do so for at least another two years?I gently remind him that the Labour party first promised to reform regulation back in 1997. Is it not odd that, now that the Bill has eventually appeared, it not only promises the establishment of Ofcom but suggests a means for its premature demise? Why is that, and what is the sense in considering proposals for the reform of media regulation without any reference to the BBC, which still has almost 40 per cent. of audience share?

Kim Howells: I believe in sunset clauses, because I think that when regulation is irrelevant or useless, we should get rid of it. Indeed, I should like that principle to be applied to most new regulation that comes before the House. We are sticking to our manifesto commitment to deliver Ofcom by 2003: that is what we are going to try to do. We never promised to include the regulation of the BBC—or, at least, the core of BBC regulation—as part of that new legislation.

Chris Bryant: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer to the initial question, especially as it was exactly the same as an answer given in Trade and Industry questions last Thursday. I presume that that means that we will see joined-up handwriting between the two Departments on this matter in the next two years. Does he believe that universal access is one of the most urgent issues on which Ofcom must deliver? The matter is especially important at a time when many parts of the country do not have digital terrestrial television coverage, cable coverage or ADSL—asymmetric digital subscriber line—coverage. This is a major issue for those who want the whole country and not just some parts of it to share in new technology.

Kim Howells: The question of coverage must be one of the major tests before there is any idea of the analogue signal being switched off. My hon. Friend, who has the great privilege of representing the Rhondda valley, will know that we have a greater concentration of relay stations in that area than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We must ensure that the question of coverage is solved, otherwise we will disfranchise many people from their main source of information and entertainment.

Athletics Stadium, Pickett's Lock

Sydney Chapman: If she will make a statement on the construction of the new athletics stadium at Pickett's Lock, with particular reference to the commencement of site works and the completion of the project.

Tessa Jowell: I am tempted to refer the House to the answer that I gave to question 2, which concerned Wembley, as Sport England has concluded that it is not yet able to commit lottery funding to the Lee valley national athletics centre project. On 2 July, Sport England asked Patrick Carter, who is conducting the review of the English national stadium, to carry out a separate review to assess whether the project can be funded and managed in its present form. The Government welcome that review and look forward to receiving its conclusions.

Sydney Chapman: The right hon. Lady knows that, at the end of the last Parliament, her predecessor categorically stated in answer to a question from me that the Pickett's Lock project would go ahead. Will she confirm that, if it is going ahead, it must be built by 2004 to house the world athletics championships? If it is not going to go ahead, will she give an assurance that the Wembley stadium project will include an athletics track, which will be ready by 2004?

Tessa Jowell: We have made a clear commitment to host the 2005 world athletics championships in a world-class stadium. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Pickett's Lock had been identified as the location for the stadium. However, there is a clear funding gap, and Sport England was not prepared to commit more money to the project until it was sure of its financial viability. I support that judgment and the review that Patrick Carter is carrying out.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Clergy (Conditions of Service)

Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on conditions of service for the clergy.

Stuart Bell: Conditions vary slightly from diocese to diocese. However, in addition to their stipend, based on a national stipends benchmark of £16,910 from April 2001, clergy receive free accommodation or a housing allowance, and membership of a non-contributory pension scheme. In addition, their working expenses should be fully reimbursed.

Ben Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is anxiety about the form of the proposed clergy disciplinary tribunal and worries about the stipends review body, which, it is believed, will simply maintain the status quo? When is it intended to give the clergy conditions of service similar to those that others enjoy, appropriate contracts, and appropriate redress in cases of dismissal?

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend may be anticipating the Clergy Discipline Measure which will shortly be before the Ecclesiastical Committee. He knows that the Government have powers under the Employment Rights Act 1996 to give ministers of religion some employees' rights. The Government have undertaken to issue a consultation document before exercising their powers under the Act. The Archbishops Council has set up a group to co-ordinate the Church's response. I am sure that the clergy will welcome that and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts the assurance that, ultimately, they will be properly looked after.

Anne McIntosh: I am sure that the clergy will welcome that response. May I take the opportunity to pay tribute to them, especially the vicars of the hillside parishes, which have been caught up in the dreadful foot and mouth crisis? I pay tribute to their tremendous efforts, which have been beyond the call of duty, to deal with the human stress and suffering at this time.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing attention to the work of the clergy in rural areas. I also pay tribute to the Bishop of Bradford, who has worked hard in the aftermath of the riots there.

Prelates

Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about annual expenditure on prelates.

Stuart Bell: The Church Commissioners spent £15.8 million in 2000 on bishops' stipends and working costs and looking after diocesan bishops' houses, which the Commissioners own. Housing and working costs budgets are agreed annually.

Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Member agree that, notwithstanding the recent increases, the expenses continue to represent a bargain for the Church, especially when compared with our own expenses? What will the commissioners do to relieve prelates of administrative burdens so that they can concentrate on the teaching ministry of which the nation is in such great need?

Stuart Bell: Fortunately for me, I am not responsible for MPs' pay structures or costs. As Sue MacGregor said on Radio 4's "Today" programme when interviewing Professor Anthony Mellows, bishops are struggling to carry out their daily tasks because of mounting financial and other burdens. Professor Mellows, who is conducting the review of bishops' needs and resources, responded by saying that there was a great difference between the public perception, which was of rather grand life styles, and the reality of the position. The hon. Gentleman's point on the way in which the Church Commissioners can help to relieve bishops of their administrative burden is well taken and will be looked at.

Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he has absolutely no sympathy with the nitpicking Scrooges who would deprive bishops of the opportunity to obtain modest driving assistance? It is surely not right that bishops should have to drive themselves round their dioceses to all their engagements.

Stuart Bell: All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is, "Amen to that."

Church Buildings (Maintenance)

Paul Flynn: How much public funding has been invested in the maintenance of church buildings in each of the past five years.

Stuart Bell: Broadly, grants offered—as opposed to expended—over the past five years for all places of worship, including those of other denominations and faiths, and for works to contents as well as fabric, were in the order of £20 million a year.

Paul Flynn: That is a considerable sum of money.I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noted that many churches are now using some of their surplus space resulting from dwindling congregations for community purposes, such as nursery schools, youth clubs, meetings and facilities for pensioners. Will he ensure that, when these grants are given in future, the possibility of dual use for community purposes is taken into account as well as architectural and historic considerations?

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend says that £20 million a year is a lot of money, but the churches require something like £120 million a year. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that churches, particularly those in rural areas, are playing a greater part in the community. We welcome and encourage that, and my hon. Friend's comments will help us to do so.

John Bercow: To what extent has public funding of the maintenance of church buildings been counteracted and offset by the revenues from VAT? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an inherent absurdity in giving with one hand and taking away with the other?

Stuart Bell: That inherent absurdity was taken into account by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he agreed to give grants to bring down the value of VAT from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. The VAT costs on repairs and maintenance to listed Church of England buildings is estimated to be £10 million. We are now discussing with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how we can establish procedures whereby the grants announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be brought into effect. It is worthy and important that the hon. Gentleman has referred to this matter today.

Investment Portfolio

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the performance of the Commissioners' investment; and how it affects their ability to support the dioceses.

Stuart Bell: In 2000, the total return earned by the commissioners on their investments was 3.1 per cent. This compared favourably with the Wood Mackenzie all-funds universe average of minus 1.3 per cent. The commissioners were in the top 10 per cent. of funds measured by WM.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: With great respect to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, I thought that his answer was slightly complacent. He will be aware that, on investment assets of £3.1 billion, the Church's expenditure over income last year was £34 million—a loss of £34 million. That was the third year in a row in which the Church made a loss. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake carefully to look at the Church's expenditure, including the immovable costs such as pensions, to ensure that the income can better be directed to the Church's ministry as a whole, rather than being used to meet unnecessary costs?

Stuart Bell: In relation to support for the dioceses, our good investment performance means that more money is available to support the parish ministry in areas of need and opportunity. The asset base of the commissioners is £4.5 billion, not £3.1 billion. On the hon. Gentleman's question about pensions, the commissioners have agreed to make a further £10 million available for transitional relief for pension contributions in the period 2002-04.

Tony Banks: May I say to my hon. Friend that one would have thought that, with God on their side, the commissioners could get a rather better return on their investments? Does he accept that it would be advisable for the commissioners to consider ethical investment because it not only makes a good return but would be good for the morality of the Church and its position?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and welcome him back to Church Commissioners Question Time. He makes a perfectly valid point. We have an ethical investment unit that considers and makes a proper statement regarding the commissioners' investments, although we take my hon. Friend's point very much on board.

Hagg Wood, Dunnington

John Grogan: What progress has been made in negotiations with Forest Enterprise regarding Hagg wood, near Dunnington.

Stuart Bell: I can only refer my hon. Friend to a previous answer.

John Grogan: Will my hon. Friend do everything possible to achieve a tripartite agreement between Forest Enterprise, the Church Commissioners and Friends of Hagg Wood so that the people of Yorkshire can enjoy the wood to the full and so that his name will be remembered down the centuries by the villagers?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to have my name remembered down the centuries. My hon. Friend has previously asked me a question as to the future of the matters to which he refers. We hope that such a tripartite agreement will be achieved.

Points of Order

Jackie Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) tabled an amendment that names me. He did not seek my consent before tabling it. I understand that he has withdrawn it, but can you advise whether it is in order for a Member to table an amendment without seeking the named Member's consent and whether that conforms with the normal courtesies of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Members seeking to amend these motions should ensure that their amendments conform with the provision of Standing Order No. 121(1). That requires the proposer of the amendment to endeavour to find out previously whether each Member he is proposing to add to the Committee is willing to serve. From what the hon. Lady says, it appears that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not seek to secure her agreement. I deprecate his actions, which I regard as a discourtesy to her and to the House.

Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has done this about 20 times, surely he has multiplied his discourtesies to such an extent that some form of friendly but disciplinary action ought to be taken?

Mr. Speaker: I need to inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman only once and I hope that that will be the last occasion that it ever happens.

Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A week ago in the Chamber, we had a Second Reading debate on the Export Control Bill. Several hon. Members protested because certain documents were not made available until the last minute. There was great concern that, although one of the most important aspects of the Quadripartite Committee recommendations was prior scrutiny, no Government response was made in the debate. The response came late on Thursday and rejected prior scrutiny.
	The debate on Monday would have been very different had we known that that was to be the Government response and it is difficult for us to agree to proceed on Second Reading unless we possess all the facts. I ask you to protect the rights of Back Benchers.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that Front Benchers will have heard what the hon. Lady has had to say.

Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On motions, what recourse is open to Members who table an amendment that appears to be in order and that has the support of many hon. Members on both sides of the House but is not selected for debate? We have before us motions that are invidious in that they propose that individuals be taken off Committees only to allow others to go on to them. Is not there a case for you to reconsider your ruling, given the number of Members who supported my amendment?

Mr. Speaker: There is no case. I have the final decision in these matters, and that is the end of it.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be helpful if you were to tell the House whether you would consider requests for separate and individual votes on the motions on different Committees. If the House were able to do that, as I suspect that it is entitled to, and express a view on the membership of individual Committees, that would go some way towards helping the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).

Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members will be patient, I shall make a statement along those lines.

Louise Ellman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to your comments a few moments ago, may I inform the House that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham did not seek my permission or communicate with me before tabling his amendment, which appears on today's Order Paper? Is that amendment in order?

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make, which may clarify matters for the hon. Lady.

Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the amendments that you have selected is the very amendment that refers to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). Does that create a problem? You have said that tabling amendments without contacting the Member concerned is not a smart thing to do—it is unpleasant. However, that amendment has been selected, whereas other amendments that would have captured our attention and taken personality out of the issue have not been selected. Dare I say that that is not very clever?

Mr. Speaker: Difficult decisions had to be made on whether to accept amendments. I shall be making a statement that may clarify matters.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make it absolutely clear that I would never support an amendment to remove my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside from the Committee? She is a most useful, brilliant and hard-working member of the Committee, and contributes enormously to its work.

Frank Field: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was because of these problems that I tabled amendments regarding two of the Committees that did not name particular Members to be taken off, but instead asked the Committee of Selection to reconsider the whole of the membership of Select Committees and to report back quickly to the House with a new list of names after it had listened to our debate.

Mr. Speaker: It is a difficult issue. All the motions before us refer to Members by name, so it is inevitable that some amendments remove Members from Committees and replace them with others.

Frank Field: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of arguing the case for his amendment.

Frank Field: I was not trying to single out any name or group of names. I was merely proposing that the Committee of Selection be asked to consider the whole membership and to report back. It may decide to propose the same group of names after listening to our debate. I was not trying to put the House in the position of having to pick off individuals Members to bring greater justice to other Members.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, the right hon. Gentleman can vote against the motion and allow the Committee of Selection to do exactly that.

Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the enormous interest in the House and among the public about the arrangements for appointments to Select Committees, and given the undue haste with which they have been made, can you advise what procedures are available to delay the whole issue? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, the Committee of Selection could come up with some new, more representative names that, I hope, would be more democratically chosen than those currently proposed.

Mr. Speaker: The procedure would be to vote against the motions before us.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
	Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Business of the House

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister to move motion 2, I want to make a brief statement about proceedings on the motions concerning nominations to Select Committees.
	If the Business of the House motion is agreed to, I propose that motions 3 to 29 should be debated together. When the debate concludes, presumably at 7 pm, the Question will be put on each motion in turn. Where an amendment has been selected, the Chair will invite the hon. Member proposing it to move it formally, and the House will vote first on the amendment and then on the main motion. A list of the amendments that I have selected is available in the No Lobby.
	May I make it clear that today's proceedings are about nominations to Select Committees? That includes the process by which nominations are made, but it does not include the wider issues about the powers, functions and resources of Select Committees, which were raised during debate on Thursday 5 July.
	I have not selected either of the amendments to the Business of the House motion, and I should make it clear that the scope of debate on that motion is limited to the arrangements for today's proceedings.

Stephen Twigg: I beg to move,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion relating to the membership of Select Committees and the appointment of a Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons not later than Seven o'clock; such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; such Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business; and Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall apply and the Order [28th June] relating to Deferred Divisions shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a Question is challenged in respect of any of the said Questions.
	I shall be brief in outlining the purpose of the business motion. In effect, the House is being asked to approve the timing of today's debates on Select Committees, including that on the establishment of the Modernisation Committee. The matter is important to the House, and I am therefore pleased that a half-day of prime parliamentary time has been provided for it.
	No previous Government have set aside time for debates on the nominations for Select Committees before 10 pm. In past Parliaments, similar debates were timetabled for just one and a half hours. For example, in 1983 the issue was debated after 10 pm, for one and a half hours. That was six months after the state opening of Parliament. In 1987 the issue was again debated after 10 pm, with a limit of 90 minutes, and six months after the state opening of Parliament. In 1992 the debate was taken three months after the state opening, and again it was held after 10 pm. This year, the proposals are before the House just one month after the state opening, with more than double the time allocated for debate and the debate held in prime time.
	The motion ensures that the Questions necessary to decide these matters, including the Questions on any amendments, can be put today at 7 pm. An early decision means that the Select Committees will be able to begin their work before the summer recess—indeed, as soon as the senior member calls a meeting.
	The purpose of today's debate is to carry through the wish of the House. I urge Members on both sides to approve the motion, so that we can move on to the important debate and enable the Select Committees to be established today.

Angela Browning: So that we all understand what half a day in prime time means, let me point out that we have barely three and a quarter hours in which to deal with some 27 motions and five important amendments tabled by Members across the House and selected by you, Mr. Speaker.
	What distinguishes this debate from those in earlier years is the discontent among Back Benchers, again across the House.

Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Browning: No, I will not. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
	I was referring to the discontent across the House—

Hugh Bayley: Nicholas Winterton.

Angela Browning: The hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position. If he had done his homework, he would know that I abstained in the vote in 1992. I am not the person at whom to direct gibes about that vote.
	This is an important matter. Clearly, we would all like the rules under which nominations are made to have been changed by now; but thanks to an intransigent Government and an earlier Leader of the House who cared little for the wishes of Back Benchers on either side, we must now conduct a very controversial debate in just three and a quarter hours.

Gordon Prentice: I am disappointed that right hon. and hon. Members will not be able to look behind the strict confines of the individual amendments that are before us. My disquiet, which is widely shared, has been aroused because we are being asked to agree memberships of Select Committees for a full Parliament—four or five years—when many people are concerned that the names have been plucked out of the air. Would not it be better to restrict the membership of the Committees to 12 calendar months, until 16 July next year, when we could debate and vote on the recommendations of the Liaison Committee report, which are germane—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already made a statement regarding the Business of the House motion, which is very narrow. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps put that argument when we reach the next set of motions. I think that that would be the best thing for him to do.

Eric Forth: The question is why the Government seek arbitrarily to limit the time that the House has to debate what is supposed to be a House of Commons matter. As usual, the Government have thought that we should not have a prolonged debate, because that might be awkward or embarrassing. The Government also do not want Members of Parliament delayed too long in the House because they must all be home and tucked up in their beds early. The Government have put on Government business after this business, although limited in time, so it is obvious that the blame for the arbitrary truncation of the debate rests squarely with the Government.
	What could possibly be the Government's motivation for the arbitrary time limit on the debate on the next set of motions? As you have kindly indicated, Mr. Speaker, it will be proper during that debate for the House to consider the method of selection of Select Committee memberships. That may be the only opportunity in this Parliament to deal properly with that question, which is now much on people's minds.

Hugh Bayley: If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that three and a half hours is too short a time to debate the issues before the House this afternoon, why did he think that one and a half hours was sufficient time in 1992, when the Conservative Government, of which he was a member, excluded the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) from the chairmanship of the Health Committee?

Eric Forth: I do not recall any argument at the time from Labour Members. They were, as usual, silent on the matter. In fact, they probably were not here.
	This matter is rightly attracting more attention from the House, which is a welcome development. However, it will be for hon. Members to decide whether we can do justice to all the implications of the many motions in the brief time that the Government are allowing for debate. After all, we will be considering the membership of 27 Committees of the House and we are entitled to take a view on each of the proposed memberships, and on the method for determining them. That will require us to gaze into some murky depths, because we all think that we know how the determination is made.
	Many hon. Members will be happy with the proposals, because they will benefit from being members of the Committee of their choice. However, an equal number will be unhappy and some may even be suspicious of the way in which the matter has been handled. We also have six amendments to consider. If the Government wish to suggest that the membership of 27 Committees, six amendments and a debate on the procedure for determining the membership can be concluded properly in the time allowed—this will be our only opportunity in this Session and, perhaps, this Parliament—I think that few hon. Members would favour that suggestion.

John Bercow: My right hon. Friend is addressing the House with his usual restraint and understatement. Does he agree that the allocation of time is inadequate not only because it allows fewer than four minutes for debate on each of the motions on the Order Paper but because, for the debate to be adequate, we need a reiteration by the Leader of the House of what he is reported in the news media to have declared—namely, that he personally opposes the dismissal of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)?

Eric Forth: I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be of considerable interest if the Leader of the House were to honour us with an idea of what he had in mind.
	The Government might want to give further consideration to withdrawing the motion if only in the light of the number of Members who are present which, I regret to say, is unusually large. I would rather that a normal number of Members were present for such a debate—that would bring great joy to my heart. If the Leader of the House were to glance around the Chamber, particularly behind him, and look at the number of his colleagues who are here for these debates, to say nothing of Members on this side of the House, he might conclude that if even a fraction of those present wanted to participate, the time allowed would be lamentably inadequate. On that basis alone, I hope that he will seek leave to withdraw the motion so that the debate can continue at the pleasure of the House and Members can allocate their own time to the matter to decide it properly.
	Surely we all agree that the creation and membership of our Select Committees is one of the most important acts that we will perform in this Parliament. For it to be performed within this ridiculously short time scale and against this guillotine, which is what the motion amounts to, is unacceptable. My plea is that, before we are forced to vote against the motion, the Government should withdraw it.

Frank Field: I support the motion. Because of the advance publicity, a large number of our constituents will probably be watching the debate live, and I believe that many of them will be bemused by what they have heard so far and will fail to understand the points that have been made. As someone who has been in the House since 1979 and has always had to participate in these debates after 10 o'clock at night, I thank the Government for giving us prime time. We still have more than three hours, and my guess is that the House will be able to make its views effectively known to the Government before the 7 o'clock motion falls. 3.53 pm

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that his constituents would be bemused. They should not be, because as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) rightly said, the appointment of Select Committees is one of the most important acts carried out by this Chamber. We are appointing the method by which it is generally agreed that the Government of the day are most effectively scrutinised and called to account. As he and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, that is essentially a House of Commons matter. We are seeing an attempt by the Government to control the ability of the House to select the Select Committees. In other words, the ability of the House properly to perform its functions on a House of Commons matter is being curtailed.

David Winnick: I am one of those who is concerned with regard to the two Members in question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Government should not interfere. However, on 13 July 1992, in a debate about the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) being refused reappointment to a Select Committee by the Government of the day because he was considered too much of a hindrance, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not take the same view. In the Division Lobby, he voted against the hon. Member for Macclesfield being reappointed to the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Health. Will he explain why he did not resign his post if he considered it such a crucial matter?

Douglas Hogg: Of course I shall. There are many things that one does in government with which one does not necessarily agree; that is the nature of collective responsibility. Indeed, having heard the Leader of the House make observations both in private and public, I suspect that he does not agree with the decision not to appoint the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).

Patrick Cormack: rose—

Douglas Hogg: I shall give way in a moment.
	Because of collective responsibility, the Leader of the House is in the Chamber and will move the motion that excludes the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a narrow business of the House motion and we are going wide of it.

Patrick Cormack: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I was merely going to ask my right hon. and learned Friend to admit that he was wrong on that previous occasion.

Douglas Hogg: I doubt that I was wrong, because I would have been expressing in private the view that I am now expressing in public. The real question is whether one should always resign when one does not wish to oppose a particular measure. That is nonsense; we would never have government. I do not suppose that I was wrong; I imagine that I expressed in private what I am saying today. I just did not do it in public; I was discreet.
	The substantive issue is whether the House should appoint Select Committees. Nominations for 27 or so Committees are to be decided, six amendments have been tabled and there are six substantive debates. We have four hours in which to complete that.

Richard Shepherd: Three hours.

Douglas Hogg: The idea that we can do so in three hours is absurd. The House ought to say that there should be Divisions on the motions at 10 o'clock at the earliest. The idea that we should have them at 7 o'clock is a travesty of democracy but only too typical of the Government.

Derek Foster: I congratulate the Government on making the Select Committee appointments rapidly; that is unprecedented and has never been achieved before in my 22 years in the House. I am deeply disappointed by the outcome, but I congratulate them on the speed of the appointments and on having this debate in prime time, which is also unprecedented in my time. We have had enough procedural nonsense. Please can we get on with the substantive debate?

Richard Shepherd: My experience of guillotine debates and subjects that the Executive propose to guillotine is that they have a natural time span. Frankly, I do not know whether debate on the nominations would reasonably run to 7 o'clock or later. However, in total, there are more than 30 amendments and motions. Some are highly contentious. The House has rarely been as full as it is today for a debate on procedural matters. We therefore know that the issues are highly contentious. The Executive, who are controlling Committee membership through the nominations on the Order Paper, now control the time during which the House can reasonably debate them.
	I do not know whether the substantive debate will run until 7 o'clock; but, following this debate and a subsequent Division, there will be less than three hours for it. We should allow it to run its natural course. My guess is that it would probably run until just after 7 o'clock, so why waste time, as the Government increasingly do? The fact is that time to debate the present motion takes time out of the following debates, which are to run until 7 o'clock. That happens with every guillotine and it squeezes the time for debate, which means that many of us who feel strongly about such issues may not have an opportunity to speak on them.
	We are trying to reinforce the message to the Executive, who are controlling not only the timetable, but the overall debate and Committee membership, that we should be allowed to speak on those matters as we wish. A number of Members have assembled here because they know in their heart of hearts that, however strongly they wish to speak, they will not be able to under the guillotine.

Jeremy Corbyn: I, too, hope that we take a decision on this procedural motion very quickly, but I suggest that the whole business of appointing Select Committees, rushed timetables, timetable motions and guillotine motions does not bring Parliament into good repute anywhere outside this building. The public want Parliament to hold the Executive to account; they want Members to be able freely to question what the Executive, Ministers and agencies do; and, above all, they want Select Committees to be appointed not by the Executive or, under powers of patronage, by the Leader of the Opposition, but by non-office-holding Back Benchers.
	A debate on such an important issue should not be limited to three hours. If necessary, the debate should go on longer, and I will invite the House to vote against this timetable motion, so that we can have more time seriously to discuss all the issues. It seems that too often, too quickly and too readily the House gives up its powers or allows restrictions to be placed on them and on debate, which debases the House in the public eye. We should consider the turnout in the recent general election and think about what the turnout will be in future elections.
	If the House wants to be taken seriously, it must take itself and its role as a body of scrutiny, questioning, debate and proposal much more seriously than it does at present. We have already had a debate on "Shifting the Balance". Surely the message is that all is not well in the way that the House is run, and perhaps now is the time, during a debate on Select Committee appointments, to think about how to make the House more representative, more democratic and, above all, more effective in its work.

Alex Salmond: I want to make a brief point that follows from what has just been said. This debate is limited to three hours, but following your strictures on the motions and amendments, Mr. Speaker, there could be eight or nine hours of votes. Three hours of debate and perhaps 10 hours voting is a strange ratio; perhaps those on the Government Front Bench will address that point.

Stephen Twigg: I am rapidly becoming used to being the Minister with responsibility for business of the House motions, and as such I am used to the synthetic anger conjured up by some Opposition Members, but the humbug that we have heard today takes the biscuit. We propose, if I am brief, to have three hours of debate, when on every previous similar occasion there has been only an hour and a half. We are debating the motion in prime time, when every similar debate under Conservative Governments was taken after 10 o'clock and often in the early hours of the morning. There are serious issues to contend with. We would have had three and a half hours of debate. We have lost time only because of the contributions made by Opposition Members. I suggest that we accept the motion immediately, so that we can have three hours of proper debate on the matter in hand.

Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 160.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion relating to the membership of Select Committees and the appointment of a Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons not later than Seven o'clock; such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; such Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business; and Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall apply and the Order [28th June] relating to Deferred Divisions shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a Question is challenged in respect of any of the said Questions.

Select Committees
	 — 
	Accommodation and Works

John McWilliam: I beg to move,
	That Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harold Best, Tom Brake, Derek Conway, Keith Hill, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Albert Owen, Anne Picking and Syd Rapson be members of the Accommodation and Works Committee.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss motions 4 to 29.

John McWilliam: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the thoughtful way in which you have organised the debate, which might otherwise have become messy. Your wise decision will enable us to reach a conclusion in an orderly, considered and sensible fashion.
	I also thank hon. Members of all parties for their co-operation on the Committee of Selection. We were under enormous pressure to recommend the names for membership of the Select Committees before the summer recess so that they can meet to set their programmes, and hon. Members have enabled us to do that. We faced a great challenge simply because this time we had a month less in which to do that. The fact that we are discussing the motions in prime time is a testament to everyone's hard work.

Eric Forth: How many changes did the Committee of Selection make to the recommendations made by the representatives of different political parties?

John McWilliam: None. I reasonably thought that the representatives of the various political parties had sorted the recommendations out with their members before they put them to the Committee. The parties have different systems for doing that.

Alex Salmond: The Chairman of the Committee of Selection says that he assumed that the various political parties had sorted out the recommendations before they were given to the Committee, but how does that apply to the minority parties which are not represented on the Committee of Selection?

John McWilliam: The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question. Traditionally, the minority parties are represented by the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats who takes soundings to produce an agreement. That arrangement has always worked effectively. The Government, the official Opposition and the minority parties have their respective systems and they are intended to work.

Tony Wright: I am getting a little confused. If the Committee of Selection does not select, what does it do?

John McWilliam: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The Committee of Selection recommends to the House who the Committee members should be. He might be slightly confused because the Committee of Selection comes under the Standing Order for private business, not public business, and was established with a completely different function.

Patrick Cormack: Is there really any point in having the Committee?

John McWilliam: There is a huge point. If the Committee did not exist, another Committee of a similar nature would have to be found to do the job.

Mark Fisher: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John McWilliam: No. I should make some progress—[Hon. Members: "Give way."] Let me make a couple of points first, then my hon. Friend can decide whether to intervene.
	I served with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on Select Committees for several years after the new system of Select Committees was first implemented. I was a member of one Select Committee or another from 1979, when I entered the House, until it became apparent that my duties as Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall meant that I was unable to fulfil my duties on the Select Committee on Defence. In short, I have served on Select Committees of the House for more than 20 years and it has been an honour and a privilege to do so.
	Select Committees acquit themselves extremely well. I have found all the Members of Parliament with whom I have served, whatever party they represent, to be unfailingly courteous and helpful. The Committees tend to develop an independent existence. They are a huge advantage and are of great benefit to the House in its considerations. I am not saying that they are perfect—they are not; nor do I think that they have all the powers that they should have, but I am not allowed to go further in that vein.

Mark Fisher: Does my hon. Friend not understand from the tone of the House that our complaint is not about the existence of the Committees, but about the fact that they are dominated by the Government? Select Committees are parliamentary Committees, not Government Committees. He says that it is a difficult task to make all the selections, but how many minutes did the Committee of Selection sit when carrying out its considerations?

John McWilliam: My hon. Friend is missing the point. I sat on Select Committees from the 1979–80 Session onward and I have to tell him that, regardless of the complexion of the Executive, Government Members have been quite happy to go along with Select Committee reports that challenge the Government of the day. That will continue and it is an entirely good thing.

Gerald Kaufman: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) believe that failing to challenge the Government includes the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport asking the Government to prevent the scrapping of HMS Cavalier—the Minister for the Arts at the time neither agreeing not to scrap it nor even going to see it; the Committee recommending the saving of HMS Cavalier against the policy of the Government, and the Committee succeeding?

John McWilliam: My right hon. Friend is right. I remember when the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, on which the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and I had the privilege to serve, said that student fees should not be introduced. Select Committees have a long and honourable history of challenging the Executive. It is the job of Members of Parliament to scrutinise the Executive; Select Committees are merely a system for doing that.
	We have 26 Select Committees to appoint this evening. There are six amendments, which fall into two groups.

Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman says that there are 26 Select Committees to appoint. I might have misread the Order Paper, but there does not appear to be a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Will he explain why not?

Hon. Members: It is there.

John McWilliam: The right hon. Gentleman has missed it—it should be on the Order Paper.

Lynne Jones: It is not there.

John McWilliam: The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) is quite right—it is not there. He has asked a very sensible question and I shall find out the answer. [Hon. Members: "It is motion 30."] I am sorry—it is motion 30, which is not in the group that we are considering.

Robin Cook: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. It is my understanding that it has not so far been possible to draw up a list of nominations to go before the Committee of Selection. I hope that we shall be successful in time for this Wednesday.

Brian Mawhinney: rose—

John McWilliam: May I say a few words before I give way to the right hon. Gentleman? My understanding of Standing Orders is that it is not in order to intervene on an intervention—such as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was making. I give way to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire.

Brian Mawhinney: Having established that we shall not be appointing a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs tonight, may we have an assurance at some point from those on the Front Bench that such a Committee will be appointed?

John McWilliam: I can deal only with the items that have been before the Committee of Selection. That is what I am attempting to do.
	As I was saying, the six amendments fall into two groups. Amendment (c) to motion 9, amendment (c) to motion 16 and amendment (b) to motion 17 were tabled by members of the official Opposition in an attempt to make changes in the Labour membership of Select Committees. Amendment (b) to motion 15, amendment (b) to motion 19 and the manuscript amendment to motion No. 17 seem to relate to disagreements between the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrat party as to how many SNP or Liberal Members should appear on Select Committees.
	My granny told me that it was a bad idea to intrude on private grief. That seems to be what is being attempted this evening in respect of various parties. I return to my original point: the question of how individual parties make their selections and whom they select is surely a matter for them.

Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John McWilliam: May I finish my point? Selection is a matter for the individual parties. When I was Chairman of the Selection Committee during the last Parliament, I was perfectly happy to acquiesce with all parties—perhaps when a mistake was made in a change or something similar. I have not moved motions—sometimes late at night—in order that such things can be sorted out. Those selection processes are a matter for the individual parties.
	The duty of the Committee of Selection is to ensure that the balance of the House is kept in terms of membership of Committees, that the motions for nomination are properly made and that the procedures are properly adhered to.

Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John McWilliam: Before I give way to my hon. Friend, I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).

Douglas Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman understand the dismay with which his remarks are being greeted? In fact, he is saying that the sole function of the Committee of Selection is to rubber-stamp the nominations made by those on the Front Benches of the respective parties. Surely, that is not the function of the Committee. The function of the Committee of Selection is genuinely to select names.

John McWilliam: The right hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstands. I do not know what the Conservative party does, but I know that in the Labour party all the names are put before the parliamentary Labour party and are subject to its approval. I deliberately did not attend the PLP meeting last week because, when I came to chair the Select Committee, I did not want to have in my mind any debate that might have occurred. I had to be objective. Presumably, the Conservative party does it differently.

Alex Salmond: rose—

John McWilliam: The minority parties clearly do it differently, because the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene.

Alex Salmond: Earlier, the Chairman of the Committee of Selection said that he assumed that there had been agreement between the Liberals, the SNP and Plaid Cymru. There was no such agreement. Given that fact, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection has a special responsibility to protect the rights of parties that are not represented on his Committee and thus have no ability to represent themselves?

John McWilliam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, it is not a matter for me to interfere in the business of political parties, except in so far as to ensure that, if there is a debate or a problem about the nominations that are made, I speak to the people concerned. Unfortunately, until I saw today's amendments, nobody told me that there had been a problem.

Andrew Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that later in the debate I hope to address the points that have been raised? It is perhaps not appropriate to do so at the moment.

John McWilliam: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I hope that hon. Members will realise that all I can do is represent the Committee of Selection and the fact that the Committee of Selection took nominations clearly and cleanly. Those nominations are being put to the House today.

Lynne Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Can he confirm that in the last Parliament he was a member of the Liaison Committee? If so, did he support the report produced by that Committee, entitled "Shifting the Balance", which recommended changes to the way in which members of Select Committees are appointed? Will he place on record whether he agrees with that report, whether he would recommend those changes and whether they should be put to the House?

John McWilliam: I acquiesced with that report, certainly. The Liaison Committee is a Select Committee and, as a good Select Committee member, I would wish, where there was not some outstanding matter of fundamental principle, to go along with a Select Committee report. I happily did so.
	I do not wish to eat up any more of the time of the House, although most of the time has been taken up by interventions. I reiterate that amendment (c) to motion 9, amendment (c) to motion 16 and amendment (b) to motion 17 were tabled by members of the official Opposition and relate to members of the Government. That is interfering with private grief. It is up to the Government party to sort the matter out. Amendment (b) to motion 15, amendment (c) to motion 17 and the manuscript amendment have been tabled by the Scottish National party. It is up to the minority parties to sort themselves out, although I suspect that it is too late.

Richard Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John McWilliam: No, I will not give way again. I am certain that hon. Members want to get on with the debate, and I do not wish to prevent them from so doing.
	I am deeply thankful to all sides of the House for the speed with which they have been able to operate. I realise that there is controversy; there always is. In the 20-odd years that I have been in the House, there has always been controversy about the matter. At least we can deal with it at a reasonable time of the evening. I commend my nominations to the House.

Angela Browning: I shall not detain the House for long. This is a Commons matter, but I wish to associate my party with my opening general comments. At a time when matters that go on in Parliament are not held in great respect outside, we can all take pride in the respect in which Select Committees are held outside the House. The same applies to hon. Members who wish to serve on Select Committees and who have served on Select Committees not just to fulfil their duty, but to play a role in the scrutiny of legislation and of Government business.
	It is important for the Leader of the House to recognise that, as will be evident from the debate, we need a change in the way that hon. Members are selected—or appointed, as they are now—to Select Committees. In particular, the chairmanship of those Committees is not just a prestigious appointment; it is extremely important to the way that Select Committees are run and the Executive are held to account. The Leader of the House has hinted in the House and outside that he recognises that the time has come to address the important report from the Liaison Committee. In the last Session we, the official Opposition, gave up our debating time on the Floor of the House so that the House could consider that report.

Anne Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I find her views interesting. When her Government were in power, did she make any suggestions to them about changing the way in which Select Committees were appointed?

Angela Browning: As I pointed out earlier from a sedentary position, since the day on which I entered the House in 1992, I have continually questioned the way in which Select Committee appointments are made. The record will show that within a few weeks of my election as a Member of Parliament, I was unhappy about what happened in 1992 with regard to the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Health.
	I say to the hon. Lady and to new Members on both sides of the House that the power of the Whips Office, whether its influence is exerted by cajolement or other mechanisms, to offer Select Committee appointments and chairmanships to Members of Parliament is past its sell-by date. Such appointments should not be a matter of patronage for the Whips Office, which is part of the Executive. If we are to regain—it is now a matter of regaining—the right of democratically elected Back Benchers to hold the Executive to account, Select Committee procedures must be a fundamental consideration.
	I welcome the watershed that has been reached—we have reached it because of genuine feeling on both sides of the House. Any change in the procedures of the House, including those that affect the appointment of Select Committees, needs consensus. That is why I repeat the remarks that I made when the official Opposition gave up half a day of our allotted time to debate the Liaison Committee report. As I said when I led that debate, it was sad that the report was presented to the House as the subject of an Adjournment motion. If it had been debated as part of a substantive motion, and if the Government could have trusted the House—this was not a matter of trusting only the Opposition or Labour Back Benchers—the tone of this debate would have been very different.
	As we have a new Leader of the House, I say to him that now is his opportunity. I hope that, apart from the long list of motions dealing with individual names and Committees, he will see the big picture that is evident in this debate, which is that we want change.

Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a splendid point. Could not the Conservative party give the lead, as it has done on so many occasions, by introducing a system to take away the Whips' power to appoint people and to give it to hon. Members? If the Conservative party were to do that, might not the Labour party follow?

Angela Browning: Yes. Not only did I make that commitment when we debated the Liaison Committee report, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has said at the Dispatch Box that he supports in principle the recommendations of the Committee. There is consensus across the House. If the Leader of the House were minded to make the changes, there would not be such an acrimonious feeling about the way in which this particular tranche of Select Committee appointments is being made.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a logical conclusion to these proposals? I do not want to press her too hard about it, because she sits on the Front Bench and it requires careful consideration. In the past three or four debates on these matters, I have pointed out that, if we want to achieve the objectives that we have set with regard to restrictions on the Executive, new Standing Orders will be required to ensure that any hon. Member or Minister of the Crown who attempts to interfere with a free vote will be in contempt of the House. Such a change would put teeth into the restrictions. I do not want to push her hard on that proposal, as it needs much consideration, but I fear that, without it, the whole thing will become an illusion.

Angela Browning: I share my hon. Friend's concern. He will know that I pressed the Leader of the House during last Thursday's business questions to confirm that there would be a free vote in this debate on the Front and Back Benches. He gave his confirmation and I am sure that a free vote will occur.
	I should like to make one or two points about the motions. Perhaps it is unusual for a Conservative Member to pick up on the matter, but it is noticeable that, of the names recommended for Select Committees, no women are proposed for the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Public Accounts Committee or the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee. However, seven are proposed for the Modernisation Committee. I flag that up because it would be a great shame if some Committees were deemed to be boys' matters and others girls' matters. My name is down for the Modernisation Committee, but, in a spirit of co-operation, I would willingly give up my place to a man if one would like to sit on that Committee.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), who chairs the Committee of Selection, that it clearly does not have an overview. It does what it is told and simply acts as a rubber-stamp. That is a weakness in the conduct of our proceedings. If the Committee genuinely considered balance, the imbalance in the proposed membership of the Select Committees would not exist. It is appalling that no women have been proposed for the Public Accounts Committee.

John McWilliam: Would the hon. Lady like it if the Committee of Selection decided that it did not like the names that the Opposition had proposed for a specific Committee, and switched them around?

Angela Browning: I am trying not to move power from the Whips to the Committee of Selection, but to give it to hon. Members, to those who are democratically elected, not appointees who rubber-stamp what the Whips Office of any party deems to be the right way forward. That is not democratic; it does not help Back-Bench Members, and it keeps power and patronage in the hands of the Executive. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does an honourable and difficult job but he described a rubber-stamping exercise when he outlined the conduct of the Committee of Selection.

John McWilliam: It may help the hon. Lady if I stress that it is not the first time that I have questioned nominations from not only the Government party but the Conservative party and the minority parties because I do not want willing horses flogged to death. I take that duty seriously.

Angela Browning: We are hearing confirmation from all parties of unhappiness with the current system, which needs to be changed.
	I want to consider the amendments that we shall debate and especially the chairmanship of the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee. Like many other hon. Members, I received an e-mail from the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson). It states:
	"It is essential for our democracy that watchdogs are allowed to bark and occasionally to bite."
	I agree. Any Government must accept that Select Committees will scrutinise and sometimes criticise. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) pointed out on "Woman's Hour" today, that helps to create the checks and balances in our democratic procedures.
	It does not matter from which party a Chairman comes, we all respect the neutrality of Select Committee Chairmen. There is a feeling of great sympathy on both sides of the House for the right hon. Member for Swansea, East and for the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich.
	The hon. Lady does not need me as an advocate. She is a doughty fighter. I know that because I fought her in Crewe and Nantwich in the 1987 election. Having come into the House in 1992, like many other Members on both sides of the House, I have great respect for her as a parliamentarian. There are too few people in this place whom we can call great parliamentarians, but the hon. Lady is one. I pay tribute to her as a parliamentarian. It would be to the detriment not only of the Transport Sub-Committee but of the reputation of the House if her expertise and dedication to this place as a parliamentarian were denied us in her capacity as Chairman of that Committee.
	I urge all Members, old and new—if I may put it that way—to ignore the ways in which the Whips and others go about their business trying to influence them. It is not true that if one does not do as one is told one never gets ministerial office or the job of Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Jeremy Corbyn: Yes, it is.

Angela Browning: No, it is not at all. I shall conduct counselling sessions for hon. Members later if it would be helpful.
	Like many other Members, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, I voted in a certain way when it was not the wish of my party that I should do so. Ultimately, over the period of years that we all hope to spend as parliamentarians, we cannot afford as individuals simply to buckle down because of one single personal issue, when there are greater issues at stake. I want to say to all Members that this is a free vote and, in deciding how they are going to vote, they should vote for what is right for this place, and not for its history but for its future.
	The House needs its reputation to be restored. The only people who can do that are the people who sit here on these green Benches: Back Benchers and Front Benchers. That is why I say to the Leader of the House, for whom I have great respect, that this is his opportunity to hear what is being said by Members behind him and across the Dispatch Box. The way in which we deal with Select Committees now—never mind what went on in the past—could be a watershed in terms of how the House is perceived in future.

Robin Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for the tone of her speech. She asked whether I would be reviewing the system by which nominations come forward, and perhaps it would be helpful if I were to say at the outset that I will address that matter in my speech. Indeed, it will make up the bulk of my speech.
	I am also grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing out that there were seven women on the Modernisation Committee, which confirms how forward-thinking the women in the House are. As a member of that Committee, I will endeavour to make it clear that modernisation is a matter for men, too. However, I hope that the hon. Lady will reconsider her offer to give up her seat on that Committee to a man on her side of the House, because were she to do so, it would leave the Committee without a single Tory woman.
	The debate today will ensure that the Select Committees are up and running before the summer recess, which will fulfil the commitment that I gave the House on that issue. Assuming that the motions before the House are approved tonight, Select Committees will be able to meet from tomorrow. That will set a new record for the speed with which Select Committees have been created. We will have set up the Select Committees in this Parliament within four weeks of the Queen's Speech. That compares with the five months that it took in 1987, and almost three months in 1992, under the Conservative party.
	I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) complain earlier of unreasonable haste in bringing forward the nominations. When we returned after the election, at the time of the Queen's Speech, there was broad agreement—indeed, I think I can say that there was enthusiasm—that we should get the Select Committees set up before the recess, so as not to delay the important work of scrutiny. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who came to discuss this with me, agrees that that was the priority attached to the matter in all quarters of the House at the time.

Andrew Bennett: On that point, may I firmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting a move on with this issue? However, will he confirm that if the House were to decide tonight that one or two of the motions should not go through, the Committee of Selection could meet again on Wednesday, and it would be possible to put different names before the House later in the week to ensure that the Select Committees could still be set up before the recess—or at least, that they could meet in the first week of the recess?

Robin Cook: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that it is our intention to hold a meeting of the Committee of Selection this Wednesday. Indeed, that will be necessary, partly because of the point that has already been raised: we have still to complete the selection for the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Catering Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. That meeting could, of course, consider other matters that were appropriate.
	I would need the co-operation of the House if we had to resolve matters on Thursday, which would be the one remaining full day before the recess, but technically, what my hon. Friend says is correct. He is also correct to say that the Select Committees have the power to meet in the recess. The House does not have to be sitting for them to meet.
	I am accused of having acted in haste, but despite that haste, we have provided for additional flexibility and freedom for Select Committees. For the first time, every Select Committee has the right to decide for itself whether it wants to appoint a Sub-Committee. Every departmental Select Committee will also have the right to set up a Joint Committee with any other Select Committee. That freedom represents a response to the principle expressed by the Liaison Committee report in the last Parliament, that joined-up government requires joined-up scrutiny. We have provided for Select Committees to decide for themselves how to go about that.
	I will not disguise from the House the fact that this debate has turned out to be more controversial than I would have wished. Some comments that I have read about the nominations before the House have been a bit overdone. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is living proof of the willingness on this side to reappoint even the most—how shall I say it?—irrepressible Members of the previous Parliament. Nevertheless, I recognise that concern has been expressed on both sides about the lists before the House. A number of amendments address those concerns.
	I confirm to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that on this side of the House the votes on all the amendments will be free votes. I hope that they will be free votes on her side as well. As I said to the House on Thursday, this is a matter on which all Members, whether they are in government or not, must exercise their discretion. This matter is for the House, not for a collective decision by the Government.

William Cash: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Robin Cook: On this occasion, but then I must make progress.

William Cash: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who will have heard my earlier intervention. In view of the reforming zeal with which he is applying himself to his job, will he consider—I put it no higher than that at the moment—changing Standing Orders to make it a contempt of the House for any Member to try either to prevent another Member from exercising a free vote or to interfere with another Member in the exercise of his conscience or the fulfilment of his duty? After all, any such change would depend on the Government and their vote.

Robin Cook: I listened with the greatest interest when the hon. Gentleman made his earlier intervention. I suggest to him that it might be wise on my part to try to achieve reform of the House by flanking manoeuvres rather than by hanging myself out on the barbed wire in a full frontal assault on one of the strongest strongholds in the House. I heard what he said and I hope that the Opposition Whips listened to him carefully.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Robin Cook: On this occasion, but then I must deal with how we are to address the question of changing the system.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Leader of the House for giving way. Before he completes his contribution, will he say what thought he has given to the Liaison Committee report "Shifting the Balance", which is about the future appointment of Select Committees and appointments to vacancies that might occur in this Parliament? Does he accept its recommendation that those should be taken out of the power of the Whips Offices of all parties?

Robin Cook: If my hon. Friend lets me proceed, he will find that the rest of my speech addresses precisely those questions.
	Regardless of the outcome of tonight's votes, a wider issue must be addressed and I shall address it now. To get the Select Committees up and running before the summer recess, it was necessary to adopt this procedure. If we had embarked first on making major changes to the procedure and amended Standing Orders, there would have been no prospect of the Select Committees being established until October or November. Even with no such changes, only in the last week before the recess have we been able to put nominations to the House.
	I have repeatedly said that it was my intention to review in the autumn the system by which nominations to Select Committees are made. I would be the first to agree that the events of the past few days have given greater urgency to the search for a more transparent system. I intend to invite the Modernisation Committee, when it meets for the first time on Wednesday, to make the system of nominations to Select Committees the first priority for its programme.
	The Modernisation Committee can address the procedures of the House, but it cannot make any recommendations about the internal process by which political parties decide which of their members to put forward.

Jean Corston: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that within the Labour party this matter should be referred in the first instance to the parliamentary committee, so that we can come up with a process that is transparent and has the confidence of all Members?

Robin Cook: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said, and I welcome the commitment to a review of procedures in the parliamentary Labour party by the parliamentary committee. I particularly welcome the fact that the parliamentary committee will carry out that review, because half its members are elected by Back Benchers. One of the options that it will wish to consider is whether it should make the initial choice of which members of the Labour party should serve on which Select Committees.

Kevin McNamara: Am I right in saying that members of the Government serve on the parliamentary committee?

Robin Cook: I said that half the members of the parliamentary committee were elected by Back Benchers—and members of the Government have no vote in that election.

Anne Campbell: I welcome my right hon. Friend's support for the review that will be conducted by the parliamentary committee. In view of the concern about a number of people who are on several Committees, how quickly will the review be set up, and how soon will the new selection procedure be able to review the membership being proposed today?

Robin Cook: I hope that two separate reviews will commence this week: one by the Modernisation Committee on the procedures of the House, and the other by the Labour party's parliamentary committee on procedures in the Labour party. I give my hon. Friend an undertaking that that will be the timetable for the start of the reviews. The timetable for the conclusion of those reviews will depend in part on how quickly it is possible to build consensus on change. I hope that we will be able to return to this issue early in the autumn.

Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman help the House? If the Modernisation Committee comes up with a new system for appointing Select Committees, will he come to the House with a new set of proposals for membership of those Committees—one that reflects the mechanism agreed by the Modernisation Committee?

Robin Cook: I do not honestly think that I would have any alternative. There is no way in which changes to the system can be put in place without the agreement of the House. This is a matter for the House. Although I undertake to ensure that any agreed system is put to hon. Members, it must be the House that decides, not me.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me; I am sure the fault was mine. Once we have a mechanism for choosing the membership of Select Committees, as agreed by the Modernisation Committee, can we consider the whole question again, so that we can choose new members in accordance with the procedure recommended by the Modernisation Committee?

Robin Cook: No, I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance. The large number of hon. Members who may be appointed to Select Committees tonight would not want to begin their work on those Committees with the clear and explicit expectation that membership would be reviewed and we would start again in November. There may be opportunities to review and to change membership of Committees in the future, but it would be unwise of us to say that in three months' time we will sack those whom we appoint today.

Alex Salmond: Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said, does he accept that there is a problem with the numbers in the lists before us, and with the principle of how minority parties are represented on the Committee of Selection?

Robin Cook: I agree that there is an issue to be addressed. I accept that in terms of the strict arithmetical division of Committee members, the minority parties have not been represented to reflect their full strength in the House. It is a difficult balancing act, but I recognise that there is a problem.
	When we debated the changes to Standing Orders 10 days ago, I said that one of the issues that I would like to re-examine in the autumn was the size of Select Committees. There have been proposals for them to be larger, and given the number of Labour Back Benchers who have sought membership, there is an added case for considering that matter. It is for the House to make the decision, and there are also arguments on the other side of the balance sheet, but if we decided to make the Committees larger that would, I think, help to address the problem identified by the hon. Gentleman, and possibly some of the other problems identified on the Order Paper.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: May I ask my right hon. Friend to give one simple undertaking—that whatever machinery is proposed to the House, the method by which all Select Committee members are chosen will not only be spelt out in considerable detail, but be absolutely transparent?

Robin Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that I see no point in our making a change unless it introduces greater transparency. I entirely agree that that should be our priority. Fortunately, we are not short of advice on how to make the process more transparent.

Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Andrew Stunell: rose—

Robin Cook: I will give way later, but I hope that hon. Gentlemen will forgive me if I do not do so now. I really must make some progress.
	A number of texts are available to give us guidance. A good starting point for the Modernisation Committee's review would be the Liaison Committee's report "Unfinished Business", produced during the last Parliament. I am pleased to note that I seem to have anticipated what the hon. Member for Macclesfield was going to say.

Nicholas Winterton: indicated assent

Robin Cook: In that report, the Liaison Committee recognised that at the start of a Parliament it was not possible for it to clear nominations. As it consists of the Chairs of other Select Committees, by definition it cannot exist in advance of those Committees. "Unfinished Business" proposed that, after the new Parliament had sat for eight weeks, the task of nominating replacements should pass to the Liaison Committee. Because the report was published in the spring shortly before Parliament was dissolved for the general election, there was no time for the Government to produce a response. I therefore think it appropriate for the Modernisation Committee to begin its review of the system with that report.
	In the last Parliament, there was a turnover of more than 50 per cent. in the membership of some Select Committees. I hope that in this Parliament there will be more stability.

Andrew MacKinlay: Don't promote members to be Ministers, then!

Robin Cook: I will faithfully note my hon. Friend's observation, and ensure that that does not happen to him in the current Parliament.
	I agree with the Liaison Committee that the success of Select Committees depends on members giving commitment and priority to the work of those Committees. Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's objection, however, there will inevitably be a number of changes to Committee membership during this Parliament, and it is therefore important for us to identify an alternative system of nomination as soon as possible. We should consider whether that new system could provide a specific role for the Liaison Committee to clear nominations for future vacancies, and to be responsible for putting those nominations to the House.
	That was, of course, only one of the Liaison Committee's recommendations for reform; there were many others. The Committee mentioned, for instance, the importance of discussing Select Committee reports in the Chamber while their subject matter was still topical—possibly in a weekly half-hour slot after Question Time. It also suggested that the House should recognise an alternative career structure through the Committees, by reflecting the work of Chairs in MPs' salary structure.
	I am conscious that no proposal for change is without problems or will be short of opponents, but I am willing to look afresh at any proposal for reform of the Select Committees that will support their vital role of scrutiny. "Unfinished Business" calls for constructive co-operation between Government and Select Committees. It is in that spirit that I am willing to work with the Liaison Committee on the shared principle that good scrutiny makes for good government.

Gordon Prentice: In my experience, the way forward for new Labour is to consult endlessly. I welcome the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has given today, but how long will his consultation with the Modernisation Committee and others take? Does he have an end date in mind for bringing forward proposals—on a Government motion, not on a motion for the Adjournment—that would enable us to take a collective decision?

Robin Cook: The proposals would have to be brought forward on a substantive motion, otherwise we would not be able to give effect to the decision of the House. My hon. Friend asks a question that in essence I have already addressed: I would like to make progress as quickly as possible. I certainly intend that the Modernisation Committee, having met on Wednesday, will meet again during the recess, in September, to discuss this and other matters.
	I hope that it will be possible for us to make proposals in the autumn, but that depends in part on the extent to which I am able to command consensus for change in the House. I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that, in the light of the events of the past few days, it seems that if there has ever been a moment when we are likely to achieve consensus it is now. If the House reaches agreement, it can help me to make proposals more quickly than would otherwise be possible.
	The decision on who goes on to a popular Select Committee can never be made easy. Last week, with some Committees, my hon. Friends faced the challenge of choosing a dozen or fewer members from 50 or 60 applications. Whoever makes the choice in those circumstances, and however it is done, there will always be more Members who are disappointed than those who are satisfied. But the difficulty in making the choice increases the importance of ensuring that the process is seen to be transparent, fair and under the control of the House.
	The Select Committees carry out a valuable service to this House by conducting effective scrutiny. The priority for the House now is to put above scrutiny the process by which those Select Committees are chosen. We want both press and public to have confidence in those who are nominated to exercise Parliament's role of scrutiny. We will best safeguard that confidence if we ensure that future nominations to Select Committees are seen to be fully in the hands of Members of this House.

Andrew Stunell: This is an important and significant debate that will have far-reaching implications if we get the answers right. The votes at the end of the debate will not be the measure of how successful it has been, and it is of the utmost importance that the Leader of the House presses ahead with the changes and reforms that he has mentioned, instead of letting them get bogged down in the morass of parliamentary delays that can so quickly accumulate.
	Select Committees are a fundamental method of holding the Executive to account, and if they do not work effectively they cannot exercise scrutiny. They can collect and chew over evidence at leisure. They can question Ministers and, importantly, civil servants and outside experts in a way that the House cannot. They can develop an esprit de corps or, put another way, they can hunt like a pack. If they get a scent, they can follow it in a way that parliamentary debate and question times do not allow.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and the Leader of the House mentioned the Liaison Committee and the importance of its report. Much thinking is being done and we need to see some action following from it. The hon. Lady also spoke about the allocation of chairmanships, about which we have strong feelings. Many issues need to be addressed, and I hope that the Modernisation Committee and the House will have an opportunity to deal with them properly.
	Whatever criticisms may be made, and there are some sharp ones, I welcome the fact that we are having this debate now and that the proposals are before the House for consideration. That promptness is largely a result of the Leader of the House pressurising his colleagues, as well as the rest of the House, to deliver a package to us. However, we deprecate the purge—the cull—of senior critics of the Government through the Committee of Selection's work.
	We also regret the fact that the Leader of the House was unable to accept some of the proposals that we made a week ago to relieve the difficulties that the House faces. In particular, our proposal that the minimum size of Select Committees be increased would measurably improve the situation for Liberal Democrat and minority party candidates. It would also allow the Leader of the House to seek relief for those of his Back Benchers who are excluded under the present system.
	Although the speed with which these proposals have come before us is welcome, errors may be an inevitable consequence. Some things, however, are not errors. It can hardly have been an accident that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was excluded from membership of the Transport Sub-Committee. That was not a clerical oversight; it was not a case of rushing into things. It was, surely, deliberate exclusion, just as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was deliberately excluded by his party in 1992—it was not an accident or a product of haste but a conscious decision.
	In both cases, a stern and effective critic of the Government has been dealt a blow by respective Governments. Not only were they stern and effective critics in their own right but they spoke for the Committee. The Select Committee is a representative body of this Parliament. We require it to hold the Government to account; the Chairman is its representative and spokesman. An attack on the Chairman, in this way, is an attack on the House.
	What could justify this cull? It is interesting that the Leader of the House did not talk about it—nor, for that matter, did the Parliamentary Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman was silent about the process that led to the outrage that led to today's debate. He made some strong points and he made some fair ones, but he forgot to mention the one thing that is exercising the House—the reason for this decision.
	I set out the case for enlarged Committees last week. There is no doubt that enlarged departmental Committees would mean that many of the concerns that my colleagues in the minority parties are expressing today, by way of amendment and, later, by way of vote, would have been overcome. I made that point strongly last week. A Select Committee of 11 members has one place for the Liberal Democrats and the minority parties combined. A Select Committee of 13 or more members has two places for those third and minority parties. In making my best assessment of how minority places and Liberal Democrat places might properly be allocated, I have on many occasions been beset by the difficulties of the system. One of the quirks of the House is that, when it sees a pressing need it can often find a solution. Hence, on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which has 11 members, two places are allocated to the third party and minority parties. The same applies to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs.
	I do not particularly seek to justify that relationship to the House but, just as a pressing need for special dispensation revealed itself for Scottish and Welsh affairs, so there is a case for larger departmental Select Committees. Two departmental Committees have 17 members each; we shall debate those places today. Two places on each of those Committees are within the gift of the Liberal Democrat party and minority parties. In each case, of course, one place has been given to a member of a minority party. There are serious difficulties with other departmental Committees; Plaid Cymru was offered places on the Select Committees on Welsh Affairs, on Environmental Audit and on Catering. To the best of my knowledge, having submitted names, Plaid Cymru recognised that that was an appropriate allocation.

Alex Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman think it unreasonable in the wholeness of things that, having examined the relative advantages of serving on a departmental Select Committee on the one hand and the Catering Committee on the other, Plaid Cymru decided that perhaps that offer did not give it or the Scottish National party full representation in the House?

Andrew Stunell: The Clerks advised me that, proportionally, two places were to be allocated to the SNP and two to Plaid Cymru. If one aggregates those places, which, I know, the hon. Gentleman is keen to do, the total number is four. It makes no difference at all to the final toll.
	In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) said that perhaps it was not an occasion to parade private grief. I simply say to my colleagues in the minority parties that, for some Members, places on the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, a Select Committee for departmental affairs in which they are interested and the Select Committees on Environmental Audit and on European Scrutiny are not to be sneezed at. In fact, they exceed the quota that I was quoted as appropriate for minority parties.

Pete Wishart: On how many departmental Select Committees were places secured on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the SNP outwith the Select Committees on Welsh Affairs and on Scottish Affairs?

Andrew Stunell: None; let us be clear about that. The Committees I mentioned—the Select Committees on Standards and Privileges, on Environmental Audit and on European Scrutiny—are not departmental Committees. I would not try to persuade the House otherwise. However, a party that says that it is for Scotland in Europe but refuses to serve on the European Scrutiny Committee has, perhaps, got some questions to answer.
	I regret the amendment tabled by the minority parties, as it rather misses the point of the offers made to them. It is also misses the point of the arithmetic. I do not wish to dwell on the matter, but SNP representation on Select Committees went from six members to five, and Plaid Cymru stayed at four. My own party increased its representation by five members—or six, if one goes back to the establishment of Select Committees in 1997. In plain language, the situation and the terms of trade have changed. I know that that is a difficult point for my minority party colleagues to accept.
	I could also raise the issue of experience. We have tried to ensure that that experience is reflected in the allocations made in our quota, which covers the Liberal Democrats and the minority parties. I remind hon. Members that I am required to take into account not only Members who are expressing their discontent now but minority party Members from Northern Ireland, and we have done so.
	Last week I deployed my case for increasing the size of Select Committees, especially of departmental Select Committees, but, sadly, no Member from any of the minority parties chose to speak in support of that proposition.

Mike Hancock: They were not here.

Andrew Stunell: My colleague is being a little unfair; they were here, but they chose to remain silent.
	The speed of events is welcome, but it does not justify the cull of senior, experienced critics of the Government. Speed does not lead to quicker and better scrutiny if the critics are cut down. Perhaps we can accept that they are not being explicitly cut down for their own contribution; perhaps they were cut down, as used to be said, pour encourager les autres—in other words, as a warning to others. Will Labour Committee Chairmen be willing to keep their heads as high above the parapet as they should if they know that their reward at the end of their term of office is to be the same as Crewe's or Macclesfield's—victims of yet another purge?
	Speed is getting in the way of reform. Whatever the outcome of today's events, it is absolutely essential to ensure that the process of reform gains pace, not loses it, as a result of such debates. We must not just let this become an opportunity to vent steam and reduce the pressure; we must use it as an occasion to stoke the fires and ensure that we get the reform that we need. I want to make it clear that my colleagues have a free vote tonight and that they and other hon. Members feel a real sense of unfairness. There is deep concern about the control freakery that the Government are now exercising. The worry is that this is yet another setback for Parliament in its long-standing struggle to hold the Executive to account, and our votes will be cast accordingly.

Alan Williams: I shall be very brief, but in the unfortunate absence of the Father of the House—I know that all hon. Members wish him a very speedy recovery—I shall make a contribution that I think he would agree with, speaking as the most senior Privy Councillor in the House. I want to reflect on the current situation, based on 37 years' experience in the House, where I have been poacher and gamekeeper—depending on the role in which I was cast—with 22 years on the Front Bench and 15 years on the Back Benches. I know the pleasures of being a Minister, the miseries of being sacked and the pleasures of serving on Committees.
	I want to start with a different point, which colleagues will have heard me make on several occasions in the previous Parliament, when I was fighting for more power for the Public Accounts Committee. None the less, it has to be re-emphasised. Under our system, democracy does not exist if accountability does not exist. Accountability cannot exist with the current scale of business, the scale of Departments and the volume of money unless we have a working, informed and effective Committee system. That is what this debate is all about—scrutiny.
	Committees inevitably develop expertise that can match that of the Departments, so one can understand why Ministers regard them as a threat. I can remember the views that we expressed from the Opposition Benches and can compare them with what we hear from those who sit on them now. Opposition Members now understand the anguish of what seems to be the arrogance of Government, irrespective of whoever happens to be in government or in opposition at the time.
	The most important role of Select Committees is to be a bulwark against ministerial diktat. I pay tribute to the Conservative party for introducing the departmental Select Committees, which I regard as the best innovation in my years in this place. They have enabled Back Benchers, in a way that the generalist Committees, such as those on the nationalised industries, did not. The old Committees were so general that they were ineffective. The precise remit of departmental Select Committees and their direct target of Ministers and the departmental civil service has made them much more effective. They are not only well directed but are expert in their subject.
	The departmental Select Committee system is 20 years old and we have not made many changes to it. Resources are another matter, although perhaps not for today, but I say in passing—it will not endear me to any of the Committee Chairmen—that if money is available for Select Committees, I hope that it goes on advisers and back-up staff and not on salaries for individuals.
	Members on both sides of the House must ensure that Select Committees are independent from the patronage of the Whips. It is glaringly inconsistent that the Government can appoint on any Committee the majority of their scrutineers, which can produce all sorts of nonsense. As a result of something that my assistant said, I discovered only this morning that the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) did not appear on any of the lists. I hope that he will forgive me for mentioning this point, but I phoned him and asked, "What's happened? Didn't you apply?" He told me that he had applied to become a member of several Committees and had entered the open caveat that he was willing to serve on any Committee on which the Government wished to put him.
	We are all aware of the experience that my right hon. Friend can bring to the House, but he does not have a place on any Select Committee. One of the Committees on which I sit—the Public Accounts Committee—is short of four members and it might have been one of the Committees in which he expressed an interest. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is very fair minded and shares my regard for the work that right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has done for Labour Members and for Parliament generally, will take the opportunity to reconsider that oversight.
	The method of appointment is not just inconsistent: it will be an insult to those who dedicate much of their time and effort to the Committee structure and to Committee work if Committee chairmanships are seen as compensation for ex-Ministers. It is not very nice to lose a job as a Minister and it is not pleasant to walk into the Tea Room no longer carrying red boxes and with a car no longer waiting outside, but Ministers have had the privilege of being Ministers, and most Members go through the House without ever having that privilege. Ministers should therefore not need compensation for the fact that they have ceased to be Ministers. It is not a job for life. We are not children. We all know that an MP's life is transient enough and that a Minister's life is even more transient. It is nonsense and outrageous that Committee chairmanships should be regarded as palliatives for injured pride.

Jon Owen Jones: Would my right hon. Friend not regard it as even more invidious if former Ministers were offered posts on Select Committees so as to ensure that they did not reveal what may have happened when they were Ministers? That would result in the direct opposite of what scrutiny Committees are for.

Alan Williams: I am not sure that any ex-Minister could avoid the temptation of such an opportunity.
	I want to make a point with which my right hon. and hon. Friends but not Conservative Members will be familiar. In a parliamentary Labour party meeting just before the election, the then Leader of the House said that entering Parliament must be seen as a twin-track career—that there are those who go along the ministerial path and those who take the Committee route. That is rather simplistic, as I pointed out at the time, but if it is the Government's view, it must be pointed out—it was not at the time—that that twin track is for some but not others. There was no mention of the fact that there would be a first-class coach attached for ex-Ministers.
	It seems abundantly clear that, after 20 years, we need a new system to choose members of Select Committees. I welcome the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of a review, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) implied, without a time limit such a review could be seen as just a delaying tactic. I know that my right hon. Friend would not want to link his name to such a device, so I hope that he will confirm the time limit that he will set.

Douglas Hogg: I support what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that, if Chairmen of Select Committees are to be paid, it is even more important that nomination is made not by the Whips Office but by the House as a whole?

Alan Williams: That is absolutely right. There cannot be independence through a system of patronage. They are mutually incompatible; those who give can take away.

Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who has specialist knowledge. As he has started naming names in this Chamber, may I mention my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn)? My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North has a particular interest in international development and foreign affairs. His contribution in the Chamber on those subjects has been considerable over the years. Their applications to serve on Select Committees have been refused, and that has happened time and again. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) should be reinstated, and we should not forget those who want to be ordinary members of Select Committees but are just not getting a chance in this place.

Alan Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention but regret the fact that, unfortunately, she addressed her point to the person who is probably least able to help any of those to whom she referred.

Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, across the water in the Republic of Ireland, Chairmen of Select Committees—indeed, even the Irish Chairman of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body—receive extra parliamentary salaries, which are all in the gift of the Government or Opposition leader of the day? They are questions of patronage. Does he also agree that, in—properly—considering membership, we should also look at the powers of Select Committees? Although a Select Committee—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a time limit on this debate and many Members want to participate. Will Members please make interventions brief?

Kevin McNamara: Only the House can command that a person appear before a Select Committee. That power should go to the Select Committee so that it is not dependent on the Government majority of the day.

Alan Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I hope you will note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the breach of my commitment to be brief is the consequence of my hon. Friends' desire to hear me speak further.
	My final point is on chairmanships. Surely the logical people to choose the Chairmen are the Committee members themselves. They know the expertise and capabilities of their members, and that, too, would be a liberating factor. I urge the Leader of the House to consider that. He is in a unique position. His role provides a wonderful opportunity for anyone who wants to advance democracy and the rights of Parliament and the Back Bencher. I am sure that his heart is in the right place; I just hope that his actions will reflect his instincts.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). The House listened with respect to his balanced contribution. I shall seek to beat him for brevity if I cannot match him for wisdom.
	I have three points to make. The first relates to the method of choosing the names for Select Committees. I speak as a new member of the Committee of Selection. I have attended only two meetings, but that has been enough to persuade me that it does not serve the House well. It has been captured by the usual channels, and I welcome the beam of light that is being shone on that obscure body this afternoon.
	The Committee has nine members appointed by the House in the correct proportions of six, two and one. It is chaired with dispatch by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam). Of the eight remaining members, five are Whips. Had my party not generously acceded to my request to have one of our two places, six of the eight would have been Whips. There is a convention among Whips that they do not challenge the nominations of other parties. If the other side wants to put someone on a Committee or to keep someone off whose interests may be relevant but unhelpful, that is not challenged. It is no secret that I recently proposed an amendment in the Committee. Like the man in the Bateman cartoon, I was shot down in flames.
	Unlike other Committees, the substance of the discussion is not circulated beforehand. We know what Committees we are going to appoint, but we do not know the nominations. They are produced like rabbits out of a hat at the meeting and agreed, usually without discussion or division. The meetings last a matter of minutes. That may be all right for the appointment of some Committees, and I am not against the involvement of the Whips. They know Members' interests, their work load on other Committees and can get a regional balance. However, it cannot be right at the beginning of a Parliament for people to be appointed to Committees for the whole of the Parliament in that way.
	There needs to be a more rigorous and transparent process, leading to an output that commands greater confidence. The Committees should be better balanced, without being over-dominated by the Whips. The names of those nominated should be available in advance and there should be an expectation that they will be discussed and defended before they are put to the House. The House can certainly go over the course again, as we are doing this afternoon, but the Committee of Selection should be doing a proper job in the first place. I welcome the announcement by the Leader of the House of a thorough review of how the selection process operates.
	My second point is that the nominations matter; they are vital. All the recent reports on reform of the House focus on the role of independent Select Committees. They should not be selected by the Government whom they are holding to account. Let us consider the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which we are appointing tonight. One of the key political issues in coming months will be the tube—the private finance initiative, Bob Kiley, the Greater London assembly and so on. That requires no legislation. It will be covered briefly at Question Time and we can have an Opposition day on it, but that does not provide the opportunity to scrutinise the Executive. The Select Committee will be the only way in which the House can get behind the PFI for the tube.
	Without being discourteous to whoever takes over from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), if she is not successfully reinstated, I doubt whether her successor will give the Government as hard a time. One of the weapons of the House is not quite being put beyond use, but being wheeled away from the front line. Using the alibi of mobility of membership, several independent-minded Members have been fingered and removed from Select Committees.
	My final point relates to the membership of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. In my view, what is needed is not so much a modernising Select Committee, but a strengthening Select Committee. Parliament's prime task is to be effective and to hold the Government to account. Yes, we should also work sensible hours, use modern technology and review antiquated procedures, all of which may well strengthen the House, but strengthening, not modernising, should be the prime purpose of the Committee.
	The Select Committee that modernises or strengthens the House of Commons should not be chaired by the Cabinet Minister whose job it is to deliver the Government's often overloaded legislative programme. There could not be a clearer conflict of interest, nor an appointment more likely to short-circuit the whole machinery of accountability. The Leader of the House must be pulled two ways: between his duty to his ministerial colleagues through collective responsibility to secure the passage of their Bills, and his duty to the House to make sure that we do our job properly and have time to scrutinise the legislation.
	The Leader of the House may well have radical ideas about reform of the House. I am sure that he would be a first-class witness before the Modernisation Committee. However, I say to him what I said to his predecessor: there is no role for the Leader of the House on a Select Committee of the House in charge of modernisation. It is like the Chancellor chairing the Public Accounts Committee.
	Attempts to sort all these matters out at the end of the last Parliament were sadly unsuccessful. There can be no excuse for the House not getting it right now.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: In the last Parliament, the Select Committee on Liaison, which consists of the Chairmen of the various Select Committees, was so concerned about how modernisation of the House was avoiding the need to develop and improve the powers of Select Committees that it produced a very balanced report in which it suggested to Parliament a way of bringing back to this place the power of scrutiny, which is what we are here for. That way was not only to improve the information and evidence-gathering techniques offered to Select Committees and the support for those who carry out the work, but to ensure that the members of the Committees were truly representative of all corners of the House of Commons.
	I do not intend to detain the House long tonight, but I have to say that I am astonished by what has happened. I do not believe that I am irreplaceable on the Transport Sub-Committee: my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) have great knowledge of transport matters and either would make an excellent Chairman. The fact is that outside, the House, the current Parliament is perceived as not doing its job properly, and the Select Committees are regarded as a means of carefully examining not only what Whitehall and the Government are doing but what all the arms of government and their myriad agencies are doing. There is no other comparable form of machinery in the House of Commons. There is no other way of doing the job.
	Although people do not always understand the intricacies of what we do here, they ask that the Members of Parliament who are sent here fulfil the role that voters expect them to fulfil, and that is not simply to go along with everything that the Executive propose. My commitment to the Labour party is total. My commitment to what is done in the name of the Labour party is sometimes less than total. I believe that the difference is essential. I do not undermine my Government by suggesting that they are not like the pope—infallible. I do not undermine the role of independent Secretaries of State if I dare, as a Committee member with other Committee members, to produce a report that examines their actions in detail.
	What the Select Committees do matters. It matters because the House of Commons must never become a great morass of people doing what they are told not by the electorate but by the Executive. That is why it is important that we vote tonight on who serves on which Committee. That is why it is important to say to the electorate as a whole that we do a vital job. Give us more powers. Give us more support. Do not give us more money. As Chairman of a Committee, I do not want money: what I need is the right to question, to examine and to produce reports on what Her Majesty's Government are doing in the name of government.
	It is because I have faith in the ability of the Labour party and a Labour Government to take just decisions that I know that they will not be frightened of the role of Select Committees in checking what they have done, what they are doing and what they intend to do. That is why I was elected. It is why we were all elected. If we forget that, the electorate will not.

John Stanley: I address my remarks to the composition of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, with special reference to the Government side. In this Parliament, as in the previous one, seven Members were nominated from the Government side. Of those Members who sat on the Committee during the last Parliament, three were proposed for renomination. Of the remaining four, two have retired from the House, and one—the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—did not want to serve on the Committee because of her commitments. Thus, of the previous Members of the Committee on the Government side who were willing and able to serve, only one—the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson)—was sacked from the Committee.
	I certainly acknowledge that there could well be occasions when it is right to dispense with the services of the Chairman of a Select Committee. It would be legitimate to do so, for example, if the Chairman did not have an adequate grasp of the subject matter before the Committee. However, as the House knows, that is most certainly not so in the case of the right hon. Gentleman. He was, of course, a professional diplomat before he entered the House. He has spent years on foreign affairs in the House, including service as a Front-Bench spokesman for his party. He is a member of the North Atlantic Assembly. He has given years of service to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and, throughout most of the last Parliament, he was the chairman of its UK branch. I can tell the House firmly that, of all the members of the Committee during the last Parliament, no one had a greater or deeper knowledge of foreign affairs than he did. The breadth and depth of his knowledge certainly exceeded that of most of us.
	It would be right to dispense with the services of a Chairman if the Chairman was indolent. I share with the House the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was extremely diligent. If we consider the many, many informal meetings of the Committee as well as the hours spent in formal meetings, his attendance record was superior to that of any other member of the Foreign Affairs Committee during the last Parliament.
	It would be legitimate to dispense with the services of a Committee Chairman if the Committee failed to deliver the goods, in terms of reports to the House. On that count, the facts speak for themselves. After a helpful tip given to me in the cafeteria by the then Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Foreign Affairs Committee adopted the practice followed by the Home Affairs Committee of printing on the inside of each of its reports the full list of reports published by the Committee thus far in the Parliament. If the House looks at the final report, which we produced days before the Dissolution, it will see that the Foreign Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Swansea, East produced in four years flat a total of 37 reports to the House, including major reports on human rights, weapons of mass destruction, the Kosovo war, European Union enlargement and several other equally important subjects. So the Committee, under his chairmanship, most certainly delivered the goods.
	Finally, it might be legitimate to sack the Chairman of a Select Committee if his chairmanship skills were seriously deficient. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that there may have been one or two occasions when his natural Welsh loquacity got the better of him and landed him in hot water, but essentially his chairmanship of the Committee was eminently satisfactory. He chaired the Committee in a way that was fair minded, consensual and patient, and that delivered the goods. The facts speak for themselves.
	Regrettably, the only conclusion that one can draw as to why the right hon. Gentleman has been sacked from the Committee—a matter on which, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) rightly pointed out, the Leader of the House was entirely silent in his opening remarks—is that the Foreign Affairs Committee produced a number of criticisms of the Government's foreign policy in the last Parliament.
	I wish to make it clear to the House that those criticisms were not from one party on the Select Committee. They were not overwhelmingly from just part of the Select Committee. Such criticisms as there were in those 37 reports were overwhelmingly criticisms made by every member of the Select Committee and by every party on the Select Committee in reports that were unanimously agreed.
	Therefore it is necessary to ask whether the House is prepared to tolerate a situation in which the Chairman of a Select Committee can be sacked for the supposed sin of having chaired a Select Committee that made criticisms of the Government. In posing that question, I say straight away that this is not an issue on which the official Opposition can make political capital. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the shadow Leader of the House, was wholly right not to do so. I, like most members of the official Opposition, remember with dismay and embarrassment the events that occurred at the opening of Parliament in 1992 when, in almost mirror circumstances, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was not re-appointed to the Health Committee of which he had been Chairman, because that Committee had criticised the health policy of the Government of the day.
	This is not an issue for party points. It is, however, an issue for House of Commons points. I state such a point, as I see it, in simple terms. If the Government are allowed to get away with the sacking of the right hon. Member for Swansea, East and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the message that will be sent not only to every Chairman of a Select Committee in this Parliament but to every member of a Select Committee in this Parliament is that, if they have the temerity to criticise the Government in the course of their Select Committee's work in this Parliament, they run the risk that they will be sacked at the beginning of the next Parliament.
	That is not an acceptable proposition. It is not an acceptable system of duress of this legislature by the Executive. At the end of this debate, above all debates in this Parliament, I ask that we as a House put party last and the House of Commons first. We must make it clear to the Government that the right hon. Member for Swansea, East and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich should be reinstated to their respective Select Committees, from which they should never have been sacked.

Frank Field: I, too, shall be brief. I shall make two comments, the first to the Leader of the House and the second to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who I am sure will be back in the Chamber in a moment to hear my comments.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has an ability with words which no other hon. Member can equal. Those who have such a gift know that it is easy for them so to wave a wand and paint a picture that we are unaware of the message that we are supposed to receive. I stress that today my right hon. Friend was extremely clear about the directions that he wishes the reform of the House of Commons to take. He was sensibly silent about the membership of a couple of Select Committees. I shall return to that in a moment.
	I make a plea to my right hon. Friend. It would help the House if, at some suitable opportunity—obviously not today—he, with his considerable abilities, began to spell out for us what he and the Government see as the functions of the House of Commons. In my 22 years in this place, the Executive seem to have been terrorised by a view of the House of Commons which might have been true in the middle of the 19th century, but is no longer true today. It is not our function to make and unmake Governments, to introduce major Bills or to trip up the progress of Government Bills.
	We clearly have a job of scrutiny, but the function that the monarch had in the 19th century is now ours. We have the right to be consulted, to advise and to warn, but if the Government choose to ignore us, they will probably get away with it. However, there are people outside who are attentive and who build up an image of the way in which Administrations behave and perform. One—only one—of the reasons why the Opposition are in such poor health, if I put it as kindly as I can, is that when we were unelectable, they in government thought that they could do anything. The electorate had to put up with it, but the electorate did not forget. Once we were in a position to form a Government, the revenge of the electorate was mighty, and will clearly extend over more than one Parliament—perhaps over two or three.
	There is a message to my right hon. Friend. The Government might get away tonight with sacking two hon. Members who should be members of Select Committees, and they might think little of it, but in the last Parliament, and in this Parliament, sadly, they continue to present an image of what they are like which, I am sure, is totally inaccurate. The image suggests that they believe that one can ride roughshod, and grab and take anything. The impression of a belief that we rule, no matter what people say, is being marked down on our card outside. When we are in difficult times, we will find, like the shambles of the Conservative party, that it is too late to reform. The electorate will have marked our card indelibly, and when the moment comes, retribution will be visited upon us.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will help this place by recognising that our main function is a continuous five-year election campaign. As all the parties will be setting out their stalls and trying to create good images of themselves and bad ones of other people, it is within that interplay that our checks and balances operate. For example, if the Government get away with what they want to do, they will be playing out part of that continuous election campaign. We might agree and say that it does not matter and that the Government should have the issue. Of course, we might also say that they are beginning to build an image that will make re-election that much more difficult. We who usually want the Government to have their programme—we have been put here to ensure that it is delivered—might want to say that it is in the best interests of ourselves and Parliament for us not to let that happen. That was the first point that I wanted to make.
	Hon. Members kindly said earlier that I had applied to become a member of any Committee. My first such activity in this House was back in 1979, when the then Opposition thought that Select Committee chairmanships should be used to provide a sort of restart interview for ex-Cabinet members who wished to make their way back in the House of Commons. After a couple of weeks, the Whips gave way. David Ennals was not appointed, but Renee Short gained the position that she should have assumed. Later, I had a chance to serve on a Select Committee only because the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said that I should be on that Committee when the Whips attempted to keep me away from it.
	That Committee behaved in the way that has been described by all hon. Members. It did not try to trip up the Government or to prove silly little points. We tried to begin a new agenda, and because we did so, the Government and the Opposition felt themselves to be free and secure enough to begin to rethink their position on welfare reform. In the long run, I do not believe that there is a conflict between good government and strong Select Committees. Select Committees are not in business to pretend that we are a Government in exile or that we are about 19th—century Members thinking that they can bring down Administrations. Rightly, we do not have the power to introduce Bills. If we had such characteristics, this country would no longer have responsible government. Come the elections, Governments could say, "We did our best, guv'nor, but all those Select Committees that you wanted us to establish kept defeating our programme, time after time." There is a role for Select Committees in terms of independence and setting new agendas. There is also a role for us to say—as I am now—that the Government are wrong and should think again.
	I want now to make my plea to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who has tabled a number of amendments. I should tonight call him my right hon. and learned Friend. By tabling his amendments, he has ignited a debate that has probably surpassed his best expectations. Obviously, he will wish to speak, but I ask him not to press his amendments. Labour Members will be loth to pick on some of our colleagues and execute them while supporting other colleagues, whom we might want to be appointed. We do not want to deal with the matter in public.
	In the 1983 election, I rushed up to a house in which seven voters lived, thinking that they must be Labour supporters. I asked the woman who opened the door whether they were voting for us this time. She said, "No way." I asked, "Is your husband voting for us?" The answer was, "No way." I asked whether any of the children were voting Labour. "No way," came the answer. I then said, "Have any of you got jobs?" The woman said, "None of us." I asked whether they were all voting Tory. The woman said, "Yes; that bloody woman got us into this mess, and that woman can get us out of it." Similarly, we do not want to pick on individual Members and put others in their place. If I may say so, the Committee of Selection got us into this bloody mess and it can get us out of it. Even if the amendment that seeks to reject the membership proposals for two Committees and ensure that the Committee of Selection reports back early on Wednesday cannot be accepted, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will note that that is the wish of the Committee.

Alex Salmond: A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that she was not irreplaceable, but I should tell her that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish that she had not been replaced and hope that something can be done about that in the next few hours.
	I want to speak about the sub-plot that has been running in this debate. I refer to the private grief, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) called it, between the Liberal Democrat party and the minority parties—or certainly the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. I want also to make a few remarks about the composition of Select Committees in general.
	In speaking to amendments (b) to motions 15 and 19, and to the manuscript amendment to motion 17, I must say that I thought that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) gave us a touch of candour when he said that he was beset by difficulties as a representative of the Liberal Democrats and the minority parties on the Committee of Selection. He said that he faced difficulties in deciding on certain occasions whether to nominate a Liberal Democrat or an SNP or Plaid Cymru Member in respect of a departmental Select Committee. He must have agonised about that choice. On the three such occasions that arose for him, he plumped for a member of the Liberal party.
	I have some sympathy for the hon. Gentleman. I can imagine the difficulty of trying to say to the parliamentary Liberal party, "I had the opportunity of appointing one of you, but I thought that the SNP and Plaid Cymru had a better claim." I do not think that he would have been re-appointed to his current position if he had made such a remark. I do not underrate the difficulty that he faced, but I slightly resent his trying to gild the matter over and to say that it was a question only of numbers or experience. If it was a question of numbers, he has done a superb job. He has managed to get the Liberal party, which has 8 per cent. of Members of Parliament, 9.1 per cent. representation in the Committees—an over- representation of four hon. Members. The SNP and Plaid Cymru have an under-representation of one hon. Member both in the general and departmental Committee lists. Under- representation by one person might seem to be neither here nor there, but when a party has only two places on departmental Select Committees, one of them becomes proportionally very important.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that selection was a question of experience. It is true that a large number of my hon. Friends are new Members of Parliament. However, when there was a choice in respect of the Select Committee on the Treasury between a new Member of Parliament from the Liberal party and a rather more experienced one from the SNP, he suddenly decided to give youth a chance, and nominated the Liberal Democrat. I do not mind the fact that he faced some difficulty, but I resent the humbug that is presented to the House. Its effect is such that even the Chairman of the Committee of Selection was not told about any difficulty regarding the Liberal party and others. I do not think that such behaviour does the party any credit. On the contrary, it gives me the impression that, for all the deserved criticisms that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove made of the Labour party, the outcome of the selection process would have been exactly the same if the Liberal Democrats had been in charge of it; the only difference would have been the level of sanctimony with which the selections were proposed.
	Although it is true that it is generally invidious for hon. Members to consider amendments that propose replacing one Member with another, replacing a Liberal Member with a Scottish National Member or Plaid Cymru Member is justified under the current circumstances.
	I have some experience of what the Leader of the House is going through. Two years ago, in the Scottish Parliament, there were three minority parties with one Member each. We had a Green Member, a Scottish Socialist and an independent. In statistical terms, such representation could not have guaranteed them places on the Committees of the Scottish Parliament. Those Committees are much more influential than Select Committees or even Standing Committees at Westminster. There was an agreement, which I helped to broker as Leader of the Opposition, to ensure that those minorities had a place on the Committees despite the statistics. That was the right decision. Instead of under-representing minorities, it would be wiser and fairer to over-represent them when possible to ensure that distinctive views are expressed. That would benefit Select Committees.
	I know that the Leader of the House has an open mind on the matters that we are considering. I read his article in The Times last week and I listened carefully to his speech. I reluctantly agreed with much of what he said. He referred to Committee practice in the Scottish Parliament—and in the Welsh Assembly, which can take policy if not legislative initiatives—and I know that he will try to include some of that experience in Select Committees in the House of Commons.
	I served on the Select Committee on Energy from 1987 to 1992. I therefore know that the dispatch of independent Committee members is not a new practice. That Select Committee was independent minded when it began its work in 1987. It produced a series of reports that were critical of the Government of the day. As time went on, members were selected who were described by other members as Whips' narks. On one occasion, two Conservative Members came to blows as they discussed who was informing the Whips about the various discussions in the Committee.

Kevin McNamara: Who were they?

Alex Salmond: One of them has passed away, so I shall not identify them. None the less, a Select Committee was nobbled. It is not a new phenomenon, but I stress to any Labour loyalists who are present that that does not make it right. Just because the Tories did it does not make it right for the Labour party.
	There are only two forms of checks and balances in this place. They are the revising Chamber, whose Members are increasingly appointed and is therefore the poodle rather than the watch dog of the constitution, and the Select Committee system. I hope that the role of the latter will be expanded. Select Committees constitute an early warning system of approaching trouble in legislation or Government practice. If they become neutered and their members are simply appointed, and if they are subject to intimidation and replacement, neither the early warning system nor the revising Chamber will be effective.
	The Leader of the House, perhaps cleverly, as one of his hon. Friends suggested, said that he was open to change, which was inevitable. He also said that he was sympathetic to changes in the way in which all parties nominate Select Committee members. However, it would strengthen his arm in fighting for change if the House demonstrated its independence and rejected at least some of the Select Committee nominations this evening.

David Winnick: We should distinguish between some of the humbug and mischief making in the first part of the debate and the genuine anxiety that many of us feel about nominations for the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee. Some may say, "Look what happened in 1992. They did it." However, we would make a mistake if we repeated such actions tonight. If we support the recommendations of the Committee of Selection, we commit an action to which we strongly objected in 1992 when we were in opposition.
	Moreover, such actions did not do the Tories much good. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) spoke about the arrogance of the previous Government. The decision in 1992 was a relatively minor factor in their self-destruction; nevertheless, it affected the morale of Tory Members of Parliament. It would be a mistake to repeat such actions.
	Let me put the argument differently. If my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) had been re-appointed, would any Labour Member have been surprised? The opposite is true: we would have taken it as a matter of course. We are therefore surprised that they have not been re-appointed. Several hon. Members wish to speak, and I shall briefly express three reasons why I hope that our large majority, about which I am pleased, will not be used tonight to support what is basically wrong. We have been told that we have a genuinely free vote.
	First, there is no justification for not re-appointing my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East. If we consider all the criteria that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) set out—ability, knowledge, attendance and conscientiousness—it is clear that they should be re-appointed. The Leader of the House has given no explanation for not re-appointing them. If the Government had at least given a reason, we could take it into account. We are entitled to an explanation; we should not simply act as a rubber-stamp. Perhaps some hon. Members believe that the decision is correct, but if we believe that it is wrong we should not rubber-stamp it.
	The second reason is more important than individuals, if I may say that to my two hon. Friends. We need to reassert the authority of the House of Commons. There are many reasons for arguing among ourselves—for example, we may not like a policy—but we were elected as Labour Members of Parliament, not independents. We are entitled to stand as independents, but we know what the result would be. Like my colleagues, I want to be here only as a Labour Member of Parliament. I have no wish to sit in the House of Commons other than as a Labour Member. We therefore give the Government the benefit of the doubt on many issues, as happened in the last Parliament. Sometimes I was not happy with this or that, but on the majority of issues, I am pleased to support the Government. However, if we simply rubber-stamp a decision, which I, like many others, believe to be wrong, we act against the interests of the House and the parliamentary Labour party.
	We cannot claim that there are political reasons that we should take into account. There is no general election for at least four years, no mid-term election and no crucial by-election. In those circumstances, we would say, "We'd better rally round. It would be unfortunate if the press got the impression that we were a divided party." To put it generously, we are not likely to experience difficulties from the Opposition, at least for a while. If we believe that the Government are wrong, there is no better time than the beginning of a Parliament to vote against them for all the reasons that I have expressed.
	The final reason is that, if we rubber-stamp this decision tonight, this Government and other Governments in the future will say, "We got away with it, like they got away with it in 1992." The future Labour Government whom I hope will be re-elected might say that in the next Parliament. However, there has been enough of a row, and enough media difficulties—caused not by us on the Back Benches but by the Government—and if the Government do not get their way tonight, it is my humble view that that would make any Government far more reluctant to repeat what has been done.
	I hope that I have not taken up too much of the House's time. For the three reasons that I have given, I hope that we will decide tonight not to approve the membership of the two Committees in question: the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Douglas Hogg: I know that the hour is late and that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief and make my remarks in compressed form.
	The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked me not to move my amendment. With the consent of the House, I propose not to move it. However, I propose to vote against the substantive motion. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for lifting the secrecy from the Committee of Selection. The plain truth that we must face is that that Committee does not exercise a judgment; it simply rubber-stamps the nominations of the parties. In reality, the Whips are choosing the Select Committees, and that cannot be right.
	I hope that the House will forgive me for drawing on my personal experience. I was a Minister for 13 years, and have also been a Whip. During that time I never—or very rarely—found myself under pressure in the Chamber. However, I sometimes found myself under pressure when I was before a Select Committee. I believe that the Select Committees are the most important form of scrutiny that the House has, and if that is the case, we must reserve to the House the nominations for their membership.
	I welcome what the Leader of the House said about the Modernisation Committee determining a new way of selecting the Select Committees. However, I hope that it will approach that task with a view to reducing the amount of control that the Executive, or any party, exercises over its own members. I must point out to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) that I am increasingly the enemy of party. I want to diminish the influence of party in the House. That has always been my position, although I find it rather easier to express now than I did during my 13 years in government.
	May I say to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and to the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) that the hon. Lady's speech demonstrated why we value her so much? She and the right hon. Gentleman are parliamentarians of distinction. If one were to ask why they were not re-appointed to the two Select Committees of which they were Chairmen, there would be no sensible answer, save that they presided over Committees that expressed authoritative criticism of the Front Bench from time to time. That is what they were meant to do, and that is what I hope they will continue to do in this Parliament.
	The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—who has been here throughout the debate—and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) will have noted that I have tabled amendments to take them off the Select Committees in question. There is nothing personal in that. I am afraid that if one is trying to put two people on those Committees, one has to take two people off. I hope that they will accept that I was not making any personal criticism of them.

Alan Howarth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he intends nothing personal in his amendments. Earlier, he waxed eloquent on matters of parliamentary propriety. Will he therefore apologise to the House for having tabled amendments proposing that individual Members be appointed to Committees even though he had not consulted them?

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman may not have spotted the fact that I do not intend to move those amendments. I came to the conclusion that those hon. Members were unelectable, apart from any other reason, and that it was therefore not right for the House to consider their nominations. I therefore wished to withdraw my amendments.
	The functions of the Select Committees are critical. We value the independence of the leading Chairmen that we have had. I do not want to divide—in any sense—the consensus that has been building up in the House. I hope that the right hon. Member for Swansea, East and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich will again be able to serve on those Select Committees, and I do not want to reduce that possibility by moving my amendments. So, if the House will permit it, I shall not move them when they are called.

Andrew Bennett: I welcome the decision of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) not to move his amendments. That is extremely helpful.
	I want to talk about the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and I shall start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The whole House, and the nation, have made it quite clear that we all respect the knowledge that she brought to that Select Committee in the last Parliament, and we cannot understand why we are not going to be able to use that knowledge in this Parliament. It is important that the House should show its respect for the knowledge that my hon. Friend brought to that Select Committee.
	Less well recorded is my hon. Friend's work rate. There were times last year when she chaired both the Transport Sub-Committee and the main Committee of the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and also attended the Environment Sub- Committee. That would be a formidable task for most people. However, in addition, my hon. Friend chaired Westminster Hall, as well as being a member of the Chairmen's Panel. She was therefore putting in far more work than many other hon. Members, and was doing so with a great deal of skill. That must be placed firmly on record. My hon. Friend would, of course, admit that she can be a little bit awkward on occasions, and she can certainly be disrespectful—but her work does the House of Commons proud, and it diminishes us all if we cannot find a place for her on a Select Committee at this time.
	I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham decided not to move his amendments. He was a little unfair on my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), because she was one of the people on the Select Committee who came very close to equalling the record of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. She has an extremely good knowledge of regional and local government, and was excellent on questions of urban regeneration. It is unfortunate that her name was picked out as someone who should come off the Select Committee. She, too, had an extremely good work rate.
	If one put a report before the Committee, one would know that the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside tabled would be based on the fact that she had read the evidence and the whole of the report. There is always the temptation for a member of a Select Committee to flick through a report, find a particular page and table a few amendments, to pretend that they have been participating. In contrast, one always knew that my hon. Friend had done her homework, that she was a real participator, and one of the most skilful questioners. The House is therefore faced with a dilemma. However we get out of it, if we are not careful we shall have to take one person off a Select Committee to put someone else on. We should not run away from that fact.
	How should the House move forward tonight? I plead with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to acknowledge that, having listened to the debate, it would be perfectly easy for him not to move one or two of the particularly critical motions. He could decline to move them—the rest could be carried—and we could return to them later. If he insists on moving them, I would argue with my hon. Friends that we should vote them down. Having done so, we could then go back to the Committee of Selection on Wednesday and still get the whole process through—but it is no good our taking the easy option of voting the motions down unless we have considered the way forward.
	There are ways of dealing with the matter. The first, and easiest, would be to amend Standing Orders to enlarge the membership of the two Committees in question by one, so that there would be a place for the Member concerned on each one. That would involve two resolutions, which would be easy for the Leader of the House to introduce, to amend Standing Orders to make those extra places. That, in a sense, is the simple way forward, but Opposition Members, if they are so keen to make a change, would have to put up with a slight alteration in the party percentages on those Committees.
	There are other ways forward that need to be considered. One problem with the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee is that the Department is primarily responsible for England. Most of the issues that it covers are devolved in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but one proposed member represents a Northern Ireland constituency and two represent Scottish constituencies. They would consider the Committee's work even though 90 per cent. of it would not affect their constituents. There is no reason why a Member of the House who represents one part of the United Kingdom should not scrutinise events in any other part, but is the right balance struck by proposing for a Committee of 17 Members three who represent areas that are not directly affected by 90 per cent. of the Committee's work?
	If Opposition parties are so keen for independent scrutiny to take place, why do they always press for their percentage on Select Committees? Why could they not consider proposing Members from other parties, particularly as in the last Parliament the Conservative party had considerable difficulty in finding Members to serve who turned up regularly? There are ways forward, and this is my plea to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection: do not move those particular motions. If they are moved, my plea to my hon. Friends will be to vote them down, on the understanding that the Committee of Selection can return to the matter on Wednesday and find a solution. There are solutions, and the Select Committees could still be set up before the recess.

Patrick Cormack: Although I cannot go along with everything that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) said, he has presented the House with a realistic solution to the dilemma facing us this evening. I hope that it commends itself to the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, who is not in his place.
	The Leader of the House made an interesting speech, and I hope that it will be regarded as significant. I believe that he is genuinely anxious to improve Select Committees and their selection, and that he wants them to hold the Government properly to account. He can prove that by ensuring that the two motions are not moved. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has done precisely the right thing, and will not move his amendments. It is invidious for the House, and for Government Members in particular, to face a choice between two Members. My right hon. and learned Friend has withdrawn one dilemma and it is up to the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to withdraw the other.
	We are at the beginning of a new Parliament and the Government once again enjoy a very large majority, but I already detect signs in our debates that Government Members are conscious of the fact that huge majorities breed arrogance. I already detect a view that Government Members want to play a fuller part than they played in the last Parliament in holding the Government to account and in subjecting their actions to scrutiny.
	We have heard a number of admirable speeches. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made a splendid contribution, as did the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick). Both proclaimed their genuine pride in being members of the Labour party and supporters of a Labour Government, yet both called on their colleagues to consider what is proposed.
	This Government are not the first to be guilty of making such proposals, and I have been in a position similar to that of the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. In 1979 I served on the Education, Science and Arts Committee, which was chaired by a Labour Member, Christopher Price. He chaired the Committee with great distinction and authority, but lost his seat in 1983.
	My party, which was in government with a huge majority—almost as big as that enjoyed by the present Government—decided that it wanted to take the chairmanship of the Committee to itself. I was the senior member, but I was considered far too dangerous and was bypassed. I was not allowed to be Chairman. I did not make a great issue of that at the time, because an ex-Minister for whom I had great personal affection was put in place, but it was wrong.
	The name of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, appears, as does mine, in the motion on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have a great regard for him, and he knows that to be true, but it is wrong to shoehorn a former Cabinet Minister straight into the chairmanship of a Select Committee. That is not the right way to behave.
	We heard an admirable speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), who served on the Foreign Affairs Committee with great distinction in the last Parliament. He has personal experience, so he elaborated as perhaps no one else could on the important role played by the right hon. Member for Swansea, East in chairing that Committee. My right hon. Friend showed beyond any peradventure that removing the right hon. Gentleman was an act of malice or spite. It was not a constructive action or a recognition of his contribution to the affairs of the House.
	The same can be said of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. She is a doughty champion of Parliament, and although she is proud to be Labour just as I am proud to be Conservative, she puts her parliamentary duties above all others. She has served not only her party but the whole of Parliament by the way in which she has discharged those duties. To have a Select Committee system—or rather, a selection system—that ejects two Members of such quality and such independence of mind and spirit is an indictment of the system itself.
	I couple with the names of those two Members that of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I did not know that he had sought to serve the House as a Select Committee member until I heard it in the debate. He had not even been particular as to which Committee it should be; he was happy to serve on virtually any Committee. A selection system that will not allow a man with one of the best forensic minds in the House, and whose reputation for integrity and independence is second to none, to serve the House as a member of a Select Committee is appalling. Frankly, that made me almost as angry as the exclusion of the two former Chairmen.
	What would Members say if we proposed that the Crown Prosecution Service not only select the judges, but appoint the juries? They would laugh such a scheme to scorn, yet in effect, the Government—[Interruption.] Well, they may laugh, but the selection system would allow the Government to select the jury and the judge to pass judgment on their own policies. That is nonsense.
	I hope that the Leader of the House will heed the wise words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the former shadow Leader of the House. As he and I have said before, it is wrong for the Leader of the House to be Chairman of the Modernisation Committee. It is right to have such a Committee—although I would prefer to call it an improvement Committee. My right hon. Friend wanted to call it a strengthening Committee. We want to strengthen and improve this place and the way in which it holds Governments to account, and it is wrong that the Leader of the House is on that Committee. Of course he should give evidence, and of course he should put papers and schemes before it, but he should not chair its deliberations.
	We need to examine all our systems. The Modernisation Committee must be more demonstrably independent, and the Committee of Selection must be less demonstrably a rubber stamp. It is nonsense to have a Committee that merely receives the nominations from the two or three sets of Whips and says, "Yes, we'll have those." There should be a proper opportunity for Members to apply to a thoroughly independent Selection Committee, and to say on what Select Committees they wish to serve. I cannot think that any such independent Selection Committee would turn down applications from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich or from the right hon. Members for Swansea, East and for Birkenhead.

Jeremy Corbyn: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about applications. Does he also believe that all those who apply for membership of Committees should have their names published, so that it is transparent who applied and who was subsequently appointed?

Patrick Cormack: That is a perfectly acceptable suggestion. I see no harm in that, and it would encourage Members to put their names forward. Over the years, many people have paid lip service to this other ladder. Far too many people come to the House so anxious to serve on the Front Bench that they subdue their own instincts. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) would never fall into that category, so he has never been on the Front Bench and will find it difficult to get on to any Select Committee on which he really wants to serve.
	We should have a transparent system with a proper Selection Committee and proper applications. Members of House should know who has applied, and people should be selected to serve on Committees to which they can bring proper expertise, a true interest and true diligence. The attendance record of Select Committees is not always what it should be. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members are nodding vigorously. It is important that those who are given this duty should discharge it properly, because they are acting on behalf of us all.
	I shall finish where I began. The Leader of the House has gone—[Interruption.] Oh, no, he is still present. I apologise to him. I hope that he will heed what I have said, and will not press those particular motions, so that just as we have been spared having to make an invidious comparison between individual Members, we will be spared having to exclude two people of enormous worth, who have served the House in a fine manner over many years.

Donald Anderson: It was Adlai Stevenson who said, "With a tribute like that, I can hardly wait to hear myself speak." Yes, I am a victim—along with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—but whether I am an innocent victim will be for the House to decide. I am most grateful to all my hon. Friends who have paid tribute to me. I am deeply honoured by what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) said. He was the Opposition leader on the Committee. We have had some differences, but I have always had enormous respect for him as a parliamentarian.
	When I chaired the Welsh Affairs Select Committee 20 years ago, an academic accused me of being a democrat because of the way in which I ran the Committee. I pleaded guilty to that charge, and I hope that I ran the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in the same way.
	The key factor is not the personal, but the principle. Parliament is falling into some disrepute. Coverage in the newspapers has plummeted. The public has switched off, as was shown by the apathy during the general election. What signal are we giving to the public? The last century was extremely hard on Parliaments because the professional civil service was far more expert, and because of the secrecy, the speed of events and globalisation. Select Committees are by far the best instrument for Parliament to be expert in dealing with experts. They must be seen to be independent if Parliament is to enhance its role.
	My right hon. Friend has the ability to be a great Leader of the House. I have noticed, as no doubt have colleagues, that there was a difference between the tone of his admittedly positive speech to the Hansard Society last Thursday and what he said today. There was a gaping black hole in his speech last Thursday: there was no reference to what the Hansard Society and the Liaison Committee had said about the role of the Whips. Today, he grasped that nettle, and said something of significance about a review. I rejoice at that. Parliament faces a challenge, and I know that we will not fail.

Teddy Taylor: It is wonderful that everyone has talked of the importance of preserving our democracy and fighting for the rights of individuals. I have been in the House for a long time, and I have heard that said on many occasions, but the interesting question is what we intend to do about it. If my party feels as strongly as it says it does about this rotten and devious system of appointing Members to Select Committees merely on the instructions of Whips, what the blazes does it intend to do about it? If we really care, should not we say that we will make changes in the way in which we appoint Members to Select Committees? Nothing has sickened me more in my long time in Parliament than to hear Opposition Members shouting about what should be done when they can do something about it. If we think that democracy is at risk, we should do something about it.
	If we really care, hon. Members should examine not just the chairmanship of two Committees but some of the decisions made about individuals, including the Member to whom I refer to in my amendment (b) to motion 17. For a brief period, I had the pleasure of serving on the Treasury Committee. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), with whom I do not agree on anything, was in my opinion one of its most effective members. To some degree, he was more effective than all the others put together.
	The hon. Gentleman did not follow the rules. Members of the Treasury Committee do not decide what questions they ask: they are supplied to them by Clerks. At the beginning of a meeting, we had a bidding session to decide which of the named questions we wanted to ask. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch was different from others, in that he tended to ask his own questions. He upset things totally, and was a complete rascal.
	I am worried about the question of ability. The House of Commons is different from most places of work, in that for most jobs people need A-levels, O-levels or university degrees. Parliament is unique: there are no qualifications for membership. To be a Member of Parliament people do not need to be able to read, write or count. A law that was laid down back in 1864 says that peers, lunatics or convicted criminals cannot be an MP. That offers us a wide scope to choose from, but it is amazing how one or two of each of those categories slips through from time to time.
	The Members who have been chucked off Committees have great ability and are being discriminated against. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, with whom I hardly agree on anything, is one of the most highly qualified Members of the House. He was a successful graduate of Oxford, he is a barrister, and he has a constituency with some of the greatest social problems of the world. It made me sick to see him being chucked off while others were left on. My point is about democracy—it was not made in a party sense.
	The House must wake up to the fact that, if we genuinely believe that Select Committees can achieve something and that democracy is in danger, we must make room for Members who are different, clever or on their own.
	Another point, which, of course, is very much against the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, is that, as an individual, he did not always agree with everyone. Some members of our party do the same, and, as is probably known, there is currently a rule that we should not talk about the EEC at any time or in any way, because it is divisive and difficult. The Labour party has its rules too, and the hon. Gentleman sometimes breaks them.
	The one thing we want, and it is desperately needed, is for the House of Commons to hear about democracy. We should give the Whips some idea of what we think. I believe that the right message would be conveyed if Members voted for amendment (b) to motion 17—with the agreement of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, whom I consulted before I tabled the amendment. I think he was rather surprised.
	There is no point in just changing round some of the clever people who talk, and who always agree on everything. What is crucial is to preserve individuals.
	Much has been said about the importance of Select Committees. I feel that there is a danger of our overstating that: democracy is far more important. I therefore hope that what I have said will be considered, for if such a message is conveyed to the Whips it will, I think, do more good than anything else.
	Finally and most importantly, let me say to my own wonderful party that while it is great to hear us praising democracy, we must do something rather than just talking about it.

Derek Foster: I am grateful to be called, and very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). This has proved, as I hoped, to be an extremely important debate in terms of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive.
	I am deeply embarrassed to refer to my own position, but I am one of those who have been chucked out. I was joint Chairman of the Education and Employment Committee for four years, and was dispensed with rather summarily.
	Two aspects of the debate, however, have been immensely encouraging. We have heard a constructive response from the Leader of the House, and we have witnessed the death throes of a wholly discredited system—a system that I operated for 10 years as Labour Chief Whip. At the end of my tenure I concluded that the rough justice that had been meted out was no longer tenable, and it was I who advocated in the Liaison Committee that Select Committee membership should be removed from the power of the Whips. I am delighted that the Liaison Committee agreed; I am also delighted that, with their silly behaviour, my right hon. Friends have underlined the wisdom of the Committee's decision.
	I think that something very good will come out of this debate. I think the Leader of the House will prove a very progressive Leader: I think he will grasp the unique and historic opportunity to advance the power of Select Committees, and really begin to restore the dignity—as well as the power—of the House of Commons.

Dominic Grieve: Once again, we have had the opportunity to engage in a serious and important debate. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for outlining possible proposals for modernisation that would address some of the criticisms advanced today. There is no doubt that if that is done he will have the Opposition's co-operation and support, as has already been made clear to him.
	The fact that that is being promised, however, does not mean we should suspend our judgment on the motions. We have a right and a duty to exercise our judgment, and if what is coming from the Committee of Selection is wholly unfortunate and misplaced we should examine each motion and have the courage to reject those that appear flagrantly to fly in the face of common sense.
	I hope that the House will be willing to consider particularly the motions relating to transport and foreign affairs, and decide whether the interests of the House are being properly served in the rejection of Members whose views have been valid and trusted in the past. I await some reassurance from the Minister that the problems raised by so many today are being addressed.

Stephen Twigg: I thank all who have spoken. I shall try to respond to some of their comments, but I have only five minutes in which to do so.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) suggested that speed was getting in the way of reform. The Government have no desire for that to happen. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said on many occasions, we have tried to have the Select Committees up and running in time for the summer, and that is still our intention. As has been acknowledged by Members on both sides of the House, however, and as we have made clear, reform will now take place.
	As my right hon. Friend said, when the Modernisation Committee meets on Wednesday—assuming that we appoint it tonight—he will want it to give priority to the way in which Committee members are appointed. I do not think we could have a clearer indication that there are no delaying tactics, and no attempts by my right hon. Friend to ensure that that speed gets in the way of reform.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that there was no conflict between good government and strong Select Committees. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) gave the House the benefit of his considerable experience, and described Select Committees as the best innovation he had seen during his time in the House. I think Members in all quarters want to ensure that that innovation is advanced, and that reform takes place.
	As a number of Members said, we have benefited not just from the Liaison Committee's report—my right hon. Friend said that it would form a basis for the Modernisation Committee's consideration on Wednesday—but from the important contributions of the Hansard Society, chaired by Lord Newton, and the Norton commission, appointed by the official Opposition. All those studies and reports will contribute to the important debate that the Modernisation Committee will launch on Thursday.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) could not stay, but passed me a note to explain why. Both he and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) again raised the question of my right hon. Friend's chairing the Modernisation Committee. I think that my right hon. Friend's commitment to chairing the Committee reaffirms his personal commitment to making modernisation a priority. I see no contradiction between that and saying that we want to modernise, strengthen and improve the House. What my right hon. Friend and the Government are saying by proposing that he chair the Committee is that we place reform, renewal and improvement of the House and its Select Committee system at the heart of our priorities. That is reflected in what my right hon. Friend has said today, as well as in his important speech to the Hansard Society last week. We place modernisation of the House at the head of the priorities of its Leader.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised the question of payment of Committee Chairs. The proposal has appeared in a number of the reports to which I have referred, and we have made it clear that we will consult widely on it. It will form part of the inquiry conducted by the Modernisation Committee, and only if it enjoys wide support will it be put to the SSRB.
	We have an opportunity to settle the issue, and to allow the work of the Select Committees to begin. Labour Members have a free vote. This is a matter for the House to decide, but I commend our proposals.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harold Best, Tom Brake, Derek Conway, Keith Hill, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Albert Owen, Anne Picking and Syd Rapson be members of the Accommodation and Works Committee.
	It being 7 o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Order [this day], to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Administration

Ordered,
	That Mr. Nick Ainger, Patsy Calton, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Caroline Flint, Martin Linton, Julie Morgan, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mrs. Marion Roe and David Wright be members of the Administration Committee.

Culture, Media and Sport

That Mr. Chris Bryant, Mr. Frank Doran, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Adrian Flook, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Alan Keen, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Rosemary McKenna, Ms Debra Shipley, John Thurso and Derek Wyatt be members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

Defence

That Mr. David Crausby, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. Kevan Jones, Jim Knight, Dr. Julian Lewis, Patrick Mercer, Syd Rapson, Mr. Frank Roy and Rachel Squire be members of the Defence Committee.

Education and Skills

That Mr. David Chaytor, Valerie Davey, Jeff Ennis, Paul Holmes, Ms Meg Munn, Mr. Kerry Pollard, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. Jonathan R. Shaw, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Bob Spink and Mr. Andrew Turner be members of the Education and Skills Committee.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

That Mr. David Borrow, Mr. Colin Breed, David Burnside, Mr. David Curry, Mr. David Drew, Patrick Hall, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Mr. Michael Jack, Mr. David Lepper, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mr. Bill Olner, Diana Organ, Phil Sawford, Mr. Paul Stinchcombe, David Taylor and Mr. Mark Todd be members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Foreign Affairs

Motion made, and Question put,
	That Mr. David Chidgey, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Mr. Eric Illsley, Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. John Maples, Mr. Greg Pope, Mr. Chris Smith, Sir John Stanley, Dr. Phyllis Starkey and Ms Gisela Stuart be members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
	The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 301.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Ordered,

Health

That Mr. David Amess, John Austin, Andy Burnham, Mr. Simon Burns, Jim Dowd, Julia Drown, Sandra Gidley, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Siobhain McDonagh, Dr Doug Naysmith and Dr Richard Taylor be members of the Health Committee.

Home Affairs

That Mr. David Cameron, Mrs. Janet Dean, Mr. Humfrey Malins, Mr. Chris Mullin, Bridget Prentice, Mr. Gwyn Prosser, Bob Russell, Mr. Marsha Singh, Angela Watkinson, Mr. Tom Watson and David Winnick be members of the Home Affairs Committee.

Information

That Mr. Richard Allan, Mr. Michael Connarty, Julia Drown, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Peter Luff, Ann McKechin, Margaret Moran and Mr. Gwyn Prosser be members of the Information Committee.

International Development

That Mr. John Battle, Hugh Bayley, Alistair Burt, Ann Clwyd, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Piara S. Khabra, Mr. Edward Leigh, Chris McCafferty, Mr. Andrew Robathan and Tony Worthington be members of the International Development Committee.

Scottish Affairs

That Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Mr. Peter Duncan, Mr. Eric Joyce, Mr. Mark Lazarowicz, Mr. John Lyons, Ann McKechin, Mr. David Marshall, John Robertson, Mr. Mohammad Sarwar and Mr. Michael Weir be members of the Scottish Affairs Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Trade and Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That Mr. Roger Berry, Richard Burden, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. Jonathan Djanogly, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Mrs. Jackie Lawrence, Mr. Martin O'Neill, Linda Perham, Sir Robert Smith and Mr. John Whittingdale be members of the Trade and Industry Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
	Amendment proposed: Line 3, leave out 'Sir Robert Smith,' and insert 'Pete Wishart'.—[Mr. Salmond.]
	Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.

Transport, Local Government and the Regions

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That Andrew Bennett, Sir Paul Beresford, Mr. Clive Betts, Mr. Gregory Campbell, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mrs. Louise Ellman, Chris Grayling, Helen Jackson, Ms Oona King, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Bill O'Brien, Anne Picking, Dr John Pugh, Christine Russell, Mr. George Stevenson and Mr. Bill Wiggin be members of the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
	The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 308.

Question accordingly negatived.

Treasury

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That Mr. Nigel Beard, Mr. Jim Cousins, Mr. Michael Fallon, Mr. David Laws, Mr. John McFall, Kali Mountford, Mr. George Mudie, Dr Nick Palmer, Mr. James Plaskitt, Mr. David Ruffley and Mr. Andrew Tyrie be members of the Treasury Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
	Manuscript amendment proposed: Line 1, leave out "Mr. David Laws" and insert "Mr. Alex Salmond".—[Mr. Salmond.]
	The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 351.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr. Nigel Beard, Mr. Jim Cousins, Mr. Michael Fallon, Mr. David Laws, Mr. John McFall, Kali Mountford, Mr. George Mudie, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. James Plaskitt, Mr. David Ruffley and Mr. Andrew Tyrie be members of the Treasury Committee.

Welsh Affairs

Ordered,
	That Mr. Martin Caton, Dr Hywel Francis, Mr. Martyn Jones, Julie Morgan, Albert Owen, Adam Price, Mr. Mark Prisk, Chris Ruane, Mr. Bill Wiggin, Mrs. Betty Williams and Mr. Roger Williams be members of the Welsh Affairs Committee.

Work and Pensions

That Miss Anne Begg, Ms Karen Buck, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Paul Goodman, Mrs. Joan Humble, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Rob Marris, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, James Purnell, Mr. Andrew Selous and Mr. David Stewart be members of the Work and Pensions Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Modernisation of the House of Commmons

Ordered,
	That a Select Committee of fifteen Members be appointed to consider how the practices and procedures of the House should be modernised, and to make recommendations thereon;
	That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to report from time to time and to appoint specialist advisers;
	That Mrs. Angela Browning, Ann Coffey, Mr. Robin Cook, Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons, Barbara Follett, Helen Jackson, Julie Morgan, Mr. Peter Pike, Joan Ruddock, Mr. Martin Salter, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Mr. Paul Tyler and Mr. Nicholas Winterton be members of the Committee;
	That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.—[Mr. Robin Cook.]
	Ordered,

Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee

That Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. David Chaytor, Brian Cotter, John Cryer, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr. Paul Goodman, Andy King, Dr Ashok Kumar, Mr. Andrew Love, John McDonnell, Mr. Denis Murphy, Dr Doug Naysmith, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Anthony Steen, Ian Stewart and Brian White be members of the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform.

Broadcasting

That Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. James Gray, David Hamilton, Mr. Brian Jenkins, Mr. David Lepper, Mr. Iain Luke, Mr. John Lyons, Mr. Khalid Mahmood and Mr. Alan Reid be members of the Broadcasting Committee.

Procedure

That Alistair Burt, Mr. David Drew, David Hamilton, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Eric Joyce, Ian Lucas, Mr. John Lyons, Rosemary McKenna, Ms Meg Munn, Mr. David Rendel, Sir Robert Smith, Nicholas Winterton and David Wright be members of the Procedure Committee.

Standards and Privileges

That Tony Baldry, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. David Chidgey, Ross Cranston, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Michael Foster (Hastings & Rye), Mr. Tom Levitt, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Alan Williams and Sir George Young be members of the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Environmental Audit

That Mr. Harold Best, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Sue Doughty, Mr. Mark Francois, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. John Horam, Dr Brian Iddon, Tim Loughton, Ian Lucas, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Malcolm Savidge, Mr. Mark Simmonds, Mr. Simon Thomas, Joan Walley and David Wright be members of the Environmental Audit Committee.

European Scrutiny

That Mr. Colin Breed, Roger Casale, William Cash, Mr. Michael Connarty, Tony Cunningham, Mr. Wayne David, Mr. Terry Davis, Jim Dobbin, Mr. Mark Hendrick, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Jim Marshall, Anne McIntosh, Laurence Robertson, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Bill Tynan be members of the European Scrutiny Committee.

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

That Vera Baird, Norman Baker, Jean Corston, Tony Cunningham and Mr. Shaun Woodward be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Public Accounts

That Richard Bacon, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. Ian Davidson, Geraint Davies, David Davis, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Mr. Brian Jenkins, George Osborne, Mr. David Rendel, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Jon Trickett and Mr. Alan Williams be members of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Public Administration

That Annette Brooke, Kevin Brennan, Mr. David Heyes, Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, Mr. John Lyons, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Michael Trend, Brian White, Tony Wright (Cannock Chase), and Mr. Anthony D. Wright (Great Yarmouth) be members of the Public Administration Committee.—[Mr. Robin Cook.]

Business of the House

Robin Cook: I wish to make a short business statement.
	In the light of the votes, the Committee of Selection will now have to consider revised proposals for nominations to the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee. I hope that that will take place on Wednesday.
	The House will be invited to consider those nominations on Thursday after the debate on the Police (Northern Ireland) Amendment Order 2001. In order for it do so, it will be necessary to agree to set aside that part of Standing Order No. 121 that requires notice of such motions to be given two sitting days before the motions are taken. It may also be necessary for the House to sit beyond 7 pm on Thursday. I hope that, in the circumstances, the House will agree to both those procedural changes so that we can respond to the will of the House and, at the same time, set up all the Select Committees before the summer recess.

Angela Browning: We shall, of course, be pleased to co-operate as much as possible to help the Government complete this business.

Paul Tyler: We, too, of course, will co-operate. We recognise that the Leader of the House is trying to deal in the most sensible and expeditious way with the problem that his own side have created for him. We believe that it is important to get the Select Committees working as quickly as possible and we will do everything that we can to assist.

Alex Salmond: I welcome the statement by the Leader of the House. It is exactly the right reaction to the important events of this evening. However, he will not forget the significant concern shown across the House at the treatment of the minority parties. That has been indicated by votes that are well above our numbers.

Robin Cook: I am grateful to hon. Members for their responses. I have recognised the problem that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has identified and we shall look for ways of remedying it. I can only remedy some problems this week; I cannot promise to remedy them all.

Patrick McLoughlin: Given the statement that the Leader of the House has just made, will he recommend to the Select Committees that they meet on Friday, so that they can choose their Chairmen?

Robin Cook: When Select Committees choose to meet is a matter for them. It is, of course, open to them to meet on Friday or, indeed, on any subsequent day. Select Committees are not tied to meeting while the House is sitting. They could, if they chose to do so, meet next week.

Northern Ireland

Des Browne: I beg to move,
	That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
	I am grateful for the opportunity presented by this debate to explain the background to the order and explain why the Government believe that it is necessary to introduce it at this time.
	The order provides for the conduct of elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is being laid at this time purely as a precautionary measure. It is essential in order to keep open the option of elections if the Assembly fails to elect new First and Deputy First Ministers within six weeks. However, that does not indicate the Government's intentions nor commit the Government or the parties to this particular course of action. It is too early yet to say what will happen. This is contingency planning: all our focus presently is on working with the Irish Government to put together a package of proposals to carry forward the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement following last week's intensive discussions.
	I should like to say something about the content of the order which, of course, is understood to be compliant with the rights under the European convention on human rights. It is being made under the powers of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and replaces the original order, the New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1998, which provided for the original Assembly elections only.
	The provisions of this order provide for the conduct of all future Assembly elections. The content of this instrument is broadly in line with that of the original order save for the necessary modifications as a consequence of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the Representation of the People Act 2000. One change that we have made is to the timetable for Assembly elections. All future elections will be based on a 25-day timetable rather than the 19-day one that was set for the 1998 elections. That makes sense as it brings Assembly elections in line with district council elections, which are also run on the proportional representation single transferable vote system.
	As the original order provided only for the first Assembly elections, we planned to introduce these measures at some point prior to the programmed Assembly elections that are scheduled for 1 May 2003. However, as the House will know, the resignation of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) as First Minister became effective as of 1 July and the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 rendered that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) automatically ceased to hold office of Deputy First Minister at the same time.
	The provisions of the 1998 Act state that, if the offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers become vacant, the Assembly must hold an election to fill the vacancies within six weeks. However, should this process be unsuccessful, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to exercise his statutory duty and call fresh Assembly elections.
	The order ensures that elections to the Assembly could be called if required. You, Mr. Speaker, will note that I used the word "if". The reason we are introducing the order at this time is to ensure that all the options laid down in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are open to us. It is an option, and it does not force either the Government or the political parties of Northern Ireland into one particular course of action. It is certainly not our intention, in laying the order, to railroad them into holding Assembly elections or to assume that the search for a new First and Deputy First Minister will be unsuccessful.
	We are continuing our efforts, with the parties and with the Irish Government, to find a way forward in implementing the Good Friday agreement and it is hoped that the process of the Assembly electing new First and Deputy First Ministers will prevail. However, it is our fundamental duty to ensure that the procedures are in place should early Assembly elections be required. For that reason, I commend the order to the House.

John Taylor: We on the Conservative Benches are grateful to the Minister for setting out the main provisions of the order. As he has made clear, the order is technical in nature. Despite that, in the grand scheme of things, it could have profound implications for the political process in Northern Ireland—and even for the survival of the Belfast agreement.
	Under section 31(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the next elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly are due on 1 May 2003. The order enables the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to call fresh elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly in the event of a failure to elect a new First Minister and Deputy First Minister by 12 August. The only alternative open to the Government in those circumstances would be an order to suspend the institutions, such as occurred in February last year. Of course, nobody knows what the outcome of such fresh elections might be. They could produce a fresh basis for progress in the political process in Northern Ireland. Alternatively, they could simply entrench the current impasse.
	The Opposition do not necessarily oppose fresh elections, but before the option is triggered, the Government should be aware that it is far from risk-free. To borrow a phrase, such elections would be a leap in the dark. Whether they are held will be for the Government to decide in the light of what might happen in coming days and weeks, and in particular the response of parties to the document on which they are working with the Irish Government. Only then could a proper assessment be made of what is the best or, as the late Ian Gow would have put it, the least dangerous way forward.
	The fact that we are forced to debate this order is of course deeply regrettable. Many of us had hoped that, by now, all elements of the Belfast agreement would have been implemented in full by all the parties. That, alas, has not been so, and why the order is before us.
	It is important for the House to be aware of why the agreement has not been implemented in full. It is emphatically not the result of any failure to deliver on his commitments under the agreement by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—or, for that matter, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and his party. Responsibility for failing to implement the agreement—and as a result the current impasse—rests firmly with those paramilitary organisations that have failed to decommission a single gun or an ounce of Semtex.
	Decommissioning was a clear obligation under the agreement that was supposed to be completed within two years of the referendum. That was by 22 May last year. The date came and went; nothing happened. Then, also in May last year, the British and Irish Governments issued a statement setting out the steps that had to be taken to ensure full implementation of the agreement by the end of June this year. That was followed by an IRA commitment to begin a process of putting arms,
	"credibly and verifiably beyond use".
	More than a year later, that has still not even begun, as the report of General de Chastelain's decommissioning commission confirmed a fortnight ago.
	The failure to decommission is not all. As well as being fully armed, paramilitary organisations remain fully intact. The beatings, shootings, murders and the orchestrated violence that we saw last week continue—yet during the same period, Sinn Fein has had Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive, 444 terrorists have been released early from prison and the morale of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been seriously undermined.
	It is no wonder that the confidence in the agreement of many moderate law-abiding Unionists has been stretched to the limit. They have seen a process that appears to be all take and no give by the paramilitaries and their political associates, who pocket gain after gain and give nothing in return. The people of Northern Ireland—in fact, the people of the island of Ireland—did not vote by an overwhelming majority in 1998 for what has been described as an armed peace. They voted to take the gun out of Irish politics for good and for a peaceful and democratic future underpinned by the principle of consent. The refusal of paramilitaries to decommission is the obstacle to all those things and—again—the reason why we are debating the order.
	We wait to see whether the joint proposals of the British and Irish Governments are able to command the confidence and support of all pro-agreement parties, so that both options of suspension or elections can be avoided and the agreement fully implemented. We are told that those proposals will be forthcoming in the next week to 10 days. Given that the House rises for the summer recess at the end of this week, will the Minister say what opportunity there will be for Members of Parliament to examine and debate what the Governments come up with?
	We are entering a critical period affecting the future of a part of the United Kingdom. Surely it is right and proper that this Parliament—which, after all, remains sovereign in Northern Ireland—should have the opportunity to debate the situation and have its views heard. We on the Conservative Benches, for example, would have serious concerns if anything were proposed that appears to reward those who have failed at every turn to fulfil their obligations, but punishes democrats such as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and members of his party, who have done everything that has been asked of them, and more. In particular, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear in the House a few days ago, it would be utterly wrong to give any further ground on security or policing reform before any decommissioning.
	As the Irish Times put it in its editorial this morning:
	"there must be no fudge on decommissioning of weapons. Those who enjoy the privileges of democratically elected office cannot remain wedded to an armed, illegal force. Sinn Fein and the IRA must choose politics and politics alone—as the electorate demanded of them in May 1998. If they do not do so, the operation of the Belfast Agreement is a sham."
	Decommissioning remains the key test of the seriousness of Sinn Fein-IRA intent. Is it committed to what the agreement describes as
	"exclusively peaceful and democratic means",
	or is its participation in the process simply what has been described as tactical use of the armed struggle? We on the Conservative Benches are in no doubt that responsibility for progress rests with Sinn Fein-IRA. The paramilitaries must deliver. In the event that that delivery is not forthcoming, the Government are right to retain the possibility of elections as an option, with the caveats that I mentioned at the outset. For that reason, we shall not oppose the order.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) said that we are entering a critical phase. I would say that we did so in the 1960s and that this order is simply another page in the current chapter of trying to find a solution.

Stephen Pound: Surely we did so in the 1690s?

Lembit �pik: Some may say so; I would be digressing if I tried to give even a brief resume of the highlights of that time.
	It is worth stepping back and recognising that we have made quite a lot of progress towards peace. The difficulty now is the end game. The order before us is another tool in attempting to close the deal and achieve normality in the long term. Although it is regrettable that we have to face that eventuality, it is probably necessary.
	However, the timing of the order is unhelpful. According to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, if the office of the First or Deputy Minister becomes vacant, an election must be held within six weeks to fill it, so there does not have to be an election to fill the posts for another month or so. The political parties in Northern Ireland are engaged in intensive talks to resolve the crisis. If the worst comes to the worst and the Assembly is unable to elect the First Minister in August, other options can be explored before it is necessary to hold Assembly elections.
	The order allows elections for the whole Assembly to occur prior to May 2003, as set out in legislation, and is being made prior to the outcome of the talks. I am slightly concerned that the Government are sending out mixed messages to all those involved in the current process. As the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) said, there is no guarantee that elections will improve things. They may simply serve to polarise the positions in Northern Ireland and create a hardening and perhaps growing rift between the two key sides, as we saw about a month ago. Who knows whether the gamble will pay off? By tampering with the process to achieve an outcome, we are, to some extent, playing roulette because we cannot predict what will happen.
	The process of having an election may necessitate a degree of entrenchment in the eyes of various Northern Ireland politicians, and that would mean that we have not made progress. I disagree with the Conservative party's implication that the republicans lack a commitment to show good faith to move forward. We can all agree that decommissioning has been a key sticking point. The paramilitariesespecially on the republican side, although individuals are culpable on both sides have singularly failed to deliver that commitment. Nevertheless, the mood music has at times been more promising than the Conservatives make out. I hope that we will be careful not to hold back progress by making opportunistic comments in this place. We sometimes need to give the Government the space to have discrete conversations with those who can deliver the result.
	That said, it is clear that even if the timing is regrettable, the order is a necessary tool in the range of devices that are available to the Government to make progress in what seems to be a stagnating process, and we will not oppose it tonight. However, there is no substitute for hardliners taking the opportunity not so much to be involved in elections, but to show more good faith than they have done to date. Whatever we do with the process here, it is their attitude and actions that will determine the outcome of events in the proceeding months.

Lady Hermon: As someone who is strongly supportive of the Belfast agreement, I take no pleasure in seeing it in its present difficult circumstances. The extent of its difficulties is merely reflected by the fact that we are debating the order this evening when we should be looking forward to the scheduled Assembly elections far away in June 2003.
	No one can gainsay that the IRA's failure to decommission its weapons is the reasonthe main reasonwhy we have been brought to the regrettable stage of debating an order that prepares for premature elections to the Assembly. Decommissioning of illegal weapons was, and remains, an integral part of the Belfast agreement. Almost three and half years after it was signed, we are still waiting. I am on the record as having said that I am not a patient person in the best of circumstances; these are now difficult circumstances and I have completely run out of patience.
	I also deeply resent being cheated, and I do feel cheated by the IRA for reneging on its promise made to all of us in Northern Ireland on 6 May 2000. It promised that it would verifiably and completely put its weapons beyond use. On the basis of that statement, I was one of the Ulster Unionists who, on 27 May last year, stood in the Waterfront hall and, despite a great deal of heckling, urged my colleagues in the Ulster Unionist council to jump first and take Sinn Fein back into the Executive.
	We did jump first, and as a result Sinn Fein regained its two substantial Ministries within the AssemblyHealth, Social Services and Public Safety and Educationbut no decommissioning followed. I feel deeply cheated and, but for the resignation of the First Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on 1 July, the Government would, I fear, have continued to tolerate no movement on the weapons issue. I am ashamed of that fact. His resignation should not have been necessary. I certainly regret that he felt compelled to resign, but I fully support his reasons for taking that step. The ensuing talks at Weston Park between the pro-agreement parties have ended without a breakthrough at all. Given that they were scheduled before 12 July, which is a sensitive enough time in Northern Ireland, it should come as no great surprise that there was no substantial or significant breakthrough.
	Although Ulster Unionists have no fear of Assembly elections, I remind the Government that if there continues to be no movement on the arms issues, the D-worddecommissioningwill be the major factor in any election campaign. That is bound to polarise the two communities, as it did in the recent general election. If we head into elections in the autumnas I say, we have no fear of them[Interruption.] Despite the amusement of Democratic Unionist party Members, I assure them that we are confident that we will do well in the Assembly election.
	The difficulty is that the decommissioning problem will not go away even if we have elections in the autumn. So I urge the Government to give serious consideration to the other options, however unpalatable, especially suspension. They did not like it the last time, but it must be considered again. Last week we debated electoral fraud. There are no reforms in place to combat that before the Assembly elections. It does not take a crystal ball to predict that there will be a significant number of absent voters west of the Bann. I urge the Government to consider all options and remember that decommissioning must be dealt with; elections in the autumn will not take away the problem.

Peter Robinson: We just heard the confessions of a pro-agreement Unionist who admits to having exercised poor judgment in advising colleagues to trust the IRA. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has learned to her cost that it should not have been trusted.
	Elected representatives from Northern Ireland have few powers in the House because of our numbers. The one authority that we have is to speak on behalf of those we represent and to tender advice to them. When we tender advice, we need to summon up all our experience of those whom we are being asked to trust and determine whether there is anything in their past behaviour which would show them worthy of that trust. In this case, few intelligent people would have been prepared to advise the people of Northern Ireland that they should trust the IRA and put their future in its hands.
	The Ulster Unionist party has learned the electoral price of putting its trust in the Provisional IRAit has had to pay a heavy cost indeed. I find interesting the UUP's enthusiasm for elections while remaining willing to encourage the Government to consider other options, including suspension. The hon. Member for North Down did not clearly state her preferencewhether she would prefer no institutions to institutions in which there were fewer representatives from her partybut perhaps she will get around to it at some point.
	The Minister said that the order is a necessity and that it is part of the Government's contingency planning, but he did not state in precise terms what contingency would bring it into use. Even if the circumstances that he spelled out were to arise, there is no guarantee that the Government will use this contingency measure because, as the hon. Member for North Down said, other options are open to the Government.
	I am sure that the House would regard it as a cynical exercise if the Government were to have tabled the draft order knowing full well that they had no intention of using its provisions. However, Government advisers are openly telling the press that they prefer suspension to elections. If the Minister were to encourage some of us by stating that if the circumstancesin his terms, the regrettable circumstances, although I might describe them otherwisearose in which no First Minister or Deputy First Minister was elected before the six-week period had expired, he would act under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and use the order to call elections, the House will have used its time wisely tonight. If, on the other hand, he has no intention of doing thatI shall explore some of the reasons he might have for not doing itthe Government are engaged in a cynical exercise tonight.
	I thought I detected in the speeches of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesmen a notion that is foreign to my concept of democratic principles: they advised the Government that the outcome of any election was not wholly certain and that Ministers did not really want to hold an election unless it was going to provide the desired result. The people of Northern Ireland are being told that the Government are putting through an order tonight and they will allow Assembly elections to take place, provided the people vote the way that the Government want them to. That is the message from both the Minister and the Front-Bench spokesmen for the principal Opposition parties: such is their adherence to democracy that they will allow the people of Northern Ireland to have a vote, provided they vote the way they want them to.
	In fact, the Government know that the electorate will not vote the way they want them to. Recent experience tells them that. The UUP professes enthusiasm for elections, but whatever the tough talk in the Chamber tonight we know that in the 13 of Northern Ireland's 18 constituencies in which the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party went head to head, the DUP got five Members of Parliament elected while the UUP got four, and the DUP beat the UUP in eight of those constituencies while the UUP beat the DUP in five. Taking all of the votes cast for the two parties in those 13 constituencies, the DUP got 20,000 more votes than the UUP. Those are the facts that the Minister and his colleagues will take into consideration when deciding whether or not to use the order before the House tonight. I hope that the Government get better polling information than the Belfast Telegraph managed during the general election.
	If whatever soundings they take lead them to judge that they can get an election result that suits their policy, Ministers will use the order and go to the country, but I judge that the electorate have not changed from 7 Juneif anything, they have come to a stronger realisation that Sinn Fein-IRA are not fit to be in government. That was our belief from the start and it has been borne out by Sinn Fein-IRA's behaviour ever since.
	To the Unionists, the process has involved the making of concession after concession to Sinn Fein-IRA while getting next to nothing in return. The Provisional IRA has not decommissioned one weapon, one bullet, one ounce of Semtex, one detonatorit has not moved at all on that issue. Its representatives are happy to talk to people and issue statements containing well studied words, but they have not delivered the productindeed, they do not intend to deliver the product and they were not required to do so by the Belfast agreement. The agreement required only that they make sincere and genuine efforts to do so.
	A later agreement indicated that the Provisional IRA would be prepared to decommission in certain circumstancesif the context was right. That context is, of course, a united Ireland. If the Provisional IRA can see that progress towards a united Ireland is irreversible, it will be prepared to consider decommissioning. Many of us saw that back in 1998 and our views have been justified.
	I note that the Minister holds out the hope of the current round of negotiations, which is now complete. We are told that the two Governments are to go away and draw up a paper that will, according to the pressI shall be interested to hear the Minister confirm or deny thisbe provided to pro-agreement parties. It would appear that the Government, indulging their fascist inclinations[Interruption.] Government Members can tut as much as they want, but they should listen before arriving at their conclusions.
	The reality in Northern Ireland is that there are four main parties. My party is larger than both the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein. The Government want to speak to Sinn Feinthey repeatedly ask for and hold meetingsand they do the same with the SDLP. However, they do not do that with the DUP; they do not want to hear views that differ from their own. The Government issue invitations to talks at Weston Park not to the DUP, but to those who hold the same views on the Belfast agreement as they do. That is the form of democracy being exercised by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
	My question is a simple one. If the tuts from Government Back Benchers are anything to go by, they expect the Minister to stand and say that on the same day as the parties that support the agreement receive the documentation, the parties that are against the agreement will do so as well. That would be the proper thing to do. A major political party, one that is bigger than the parties to which the Government are currently talking, is outside the process, but it is entitled to see what proposals are being made on the future of Northern Ireland. My party's electoral mandate means that we have a greater stake than the SDLP and Sinn Fein. I want the Minister to clarify that point.
	The hon. Member for North Down said that an alternative was availablesuspension. In that, we see the hypocrisy of the SDLP. When the first suspension of the institutions in Northern Ireland was being considered to salvage the hide of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the SDLP said that the Government could not suspendthat it was dreadful even to contemplate suspension. Its representatives hightailed it to Dublin and asked the Government there to put pressure on the UK Government to ensure that the institutions of the Belfast agreement were not suspended, saying that to do so would be to ensure the death of the agreement itself.
	However, because the SDLP knows that suspension is now the alternative to an electionan election in which its strength is likely to be reducedto save its own hide it is urging the Government to choose suspension rather than elections. Although it is not always the case that the pattern of the past is repeated in such circumstances, thus far the position has always been that the SDLP, the IRA and the Dublin Government demand one thingnamely, suspension rather than an electionand I rather suspect that, during the next few months, there will not be too many people pulling out their copies of this order to look at the arrangements for the election process.
	The outcome will of course be determined on the basis of the paper being provided by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. I note that although the former First Minister for Northern Ireland told us that the process he had entered into at Weston Park would address only one subjectdecommissioningthe heralded paper deals with a whole series of issues, including policing, demilitarisation, or normalisation depending on how one wants to describe it, and other matters such as the equality agenda.
	It has been indicated, rightly, by the Front-Bench spokesman for the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), that there is huge concern in Northern Ireland about further concessions being offered to Sinn Fein-IRA on policing. That is a matter of concern not only within the Unionist community but for the police service itself. There is massive demoralisation in the force. At present, hundreds of people are taking sick leave. More than 800 have already left the RUC. If further concessions are offered to the IRA for political purposes, that will be a heavy blow and one from which the service will never recover.
	The hon. Gentleman said that there should be no further concessions on policing until decommissioning had taken place. I am sure that was loose wording, but it is worth clarifying the point. My view is that there should be no further concessions on policing before, during or after decommissioning takes place. The so-called concessions in the Patten commission report have been delivered. There is no requirement on the Government to go beyond that in terms of practical policing, and I do not believe that the Government should move on that issue. If the Government are seen to be providing policing concessions to Sinn Fein and the SDLP in order to extract some weapons from the IRA, that will undermine the whole political processa process that no longer enjoys the support of Unionists.

Tom Harris: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman made a disparaging remark about my hon. Friends. Does he agree that the majority will should hold sway in Northern Ireland in relation to reform of the police service? It is surely the overwhelming will of the people of Northern Ireland that the police services in Northern Ireland be reformed as part of the Good Friday agreement. Is he not guilty of ignoring the democratic will of the people whom he represents?

Peter Robinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confused on two issues: first, as to what people voted for in the referendum, which I assume is what he refers to as the view of the people of Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland were told by the former First Minister that the Belfast agreement would save the RUC. That was the premise on which the Ulster Unionist party fought the Belfast agreement referendum. As far as Unionists were concerned and certainly for those who trusted the former First Minister, their view was that by voting in favour of the Belfast agreement they were voting for the salvation of the RUC.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Robinson: I shall give way in a moment, but I want to deal with the second point raised by the intervention of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). Majority rule in Northern Ireland is not the policy of the hon. Gentleman's Government: it is no longer policy for Northern Ireland. The present policy for Northern Ireland, enshrined in the Belfast agreement, is that there is a requirement to have the support of a majority of both sections of our community. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is no support from the Unionist community for those proposalsnot only on policing but also on other issues.

John Taylor: rose

Peter Robinson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for North Down and then to the hon. Member for Solihull.

Lady Hermon: To correct a major point made by the hon. Gentleman, those of us who actually voted for the Belfast agreement did so in the knowledge that we were voting for police reform. As he well knows, the articles and the terms of reference set down in the agreement, for which I voted, stated that the Independent Commission on Policing had to bring forward the means of encouraging widespread community support. That is what I voted for but it has not been delivered, so we do not have the form of policing that we actually voted for. We, too, are bitterly disappointed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. After that debate within a debate, I remind the House that we are discussing the arrangements for the conduct of elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Although the debate may be wide ranging, I do not believe that it should be as wide ranging as it has become during the last few moments.

Peter Robinson: Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall respond briefly to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down. She has it wrong: that is not what the Belfast agreement said. It stated that the outcome had to be capable of having the support of a widespread section of the community. Is the hon. Lady saying that she will not support the new police service for Northern Ireland, because I certainly would not be saying

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just ruled. The hon. Gentleman is trying to continue the mini-debate that I suggested should be terminated.

Peter Robinson: Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall leave it there. I was only tying up loose ends. I give way to the hon. Member for Solihullunless he, too, wants to take part in the mini-debate.

John Taylor: I am cowed by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was about to ask the hon. Gentleman if he agreed with my interpretation of Patten: that it was intended to apply to

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be cowed.

Peter Robinson: The Assembly for which the order provides a process for new elections was set up under the Belfast agreement. The Assembly was one of the key features of that agreement, but is no more or less important than those features, such as policing, decommissioning and the whole issue of prisoner releases. All those matters were the subject of the decision relating to the Belfast agreement. If the other factors of the agreement have not been delivered, the Assembly for which the order is being introduced no longer has the same meaning or the same significance: nor indeed is it a part of the same process on which the people of Northern Ireland voted in the referendum in 1998.
	In closing, I say to the Government that it is not sufficient for them to attempt to put sticking plaster on the wounds of the agreement. That simply will not work. The requirement is for the Government to make a fresh start: to recognise that the agreement has failed; that the agreement no longer has the support of the majority of Unionists; that no process can stand or live in Northern Ireland that does not have the support of the majority of Unionists; and that there is thus a requirement for a renegotiation, to have an agreement that is capable of winning the support not only of nationalists but of Unionists as well.

John Taylor: I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is only with the leave of the House that I can speak a second time in these proceedings. I defer to you in the matter. Must that be tested or is there a ruling from the Chair?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If no one objects, the House gives leave to the hon. Gentleman.

John Taylor: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) quite fairly corrected me. He said that my text implied that we were entering a critical phase. I ought to have said a new and difficult phase. Along with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), who made a sedentary intervention, I accept that the problems are far from new. They are well over 300 years old or even more. I shall pass on the comments of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to my speech writer.
	I was also corrected by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about concessions on policing. I want the hon. Gentleman to know that my views are much closer to his than he may imagine. Although I know that I am trespassing now, I am coming to an end, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I always regarded Patten as being predicated on peace first, then Patten. These are, perhaps, differences between the two sides of the Chamber in an area in which we have tried to be helpful, as the record shows.
	I conclude with a short anecdote. I remember my first insight, well over 30 years ago, into Northern Ireland society. I went to play golf in Northern Ireland and was asked whether the golf club to which I belonged in England was a Catholic golf club or a Protestant golf club. Nobody had ever asked me such a question before, and it gave me an insight into a rather different society, which was none the less part of my own country.
	I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House for letting me respond briefly.

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Members who contributed to the debate, and I am grateful for the expressions of support for the order from the hon. Members for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and for North Down (Lady Hermon). In this short summing-up speech I shall endeavour to respond to the comments and questions that arose during the debate.
	I assure the hon. Member for Solihull that any package that emerges over the next week or so must be acceptable to all sides if it is to be effective. The Government's aim, and the priority throughout, remains the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. If we succeed in producing a package that meets that objective, every side wins and there are no losers.
	The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) invited me to speculate on the content of the package of measures. I am not prepared to do so. At this stage, such speculation would be unhelpful. Although I cannot say what will be in the package or when it will be completed, I can assure the House that both Governments are aware of the need to make early progress on all the outstanding issues.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East somewhat unworthily accuses the Government of cynicism. Nothing could be further from the truth. In my opening speech I made clear the Government's position as regards the order. The Government hope that the normal process will take its course and that the Assembly will elect a new First Minister and Deputy First Minister, but we must ensure that if elections are required, the necessary technical steps have been taken. That is the purpose of the order. I am not prepared to answer hypothetical questions based on an assumption of failure in respect of that objective.
	Finally, I say to the hon. Member for Belfast, East that the Government's primary goal is to implement the remaining aspects of the Good Friday agreement, which was voted for by the majority of the electorate in the north and south of the island of Ireland. It is only natural, therefore, when formulating ways in which that agreement can finally be implemented in full, that the Government should do so in negotiation with the pro-agreement parties.
	The Government have said on numerous occasions that the agreement remains the best opportunity that we have to bring lasting peace to Northern Ireland. It is our duty to do what we can to ensure that the agreement is fully implemented. It is not up for renegotiation. We will do whatever is most helpful to the process of implementing the outstanding areas of the Good Friday agreement. That is the priority. Exactly how the proposals are delivered, and to whom they are delivered, is a secondary issue.
	As I said in opening the debate, it is essential that we set in train the mechanisms for holding Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. It may be necessary to hold such elections later this year. Elections are in any case scheduled for 2003, but no matter when they happen, we must ensure that the system for conducting them is in place. The statutory instrument will form the basis for all future elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I am grateful to the House for allowing time to consider the order this evening.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Ruth Kelly: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 200102, and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 200102 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
	I am delighted to be here, but I am even more delighted to see the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I thought for a minute or two that the Labour party might have to put up another Wanted poster while the Whips desperately tried to find him, but luckily, here we are, face to face.
	Each year, the Government are required to send information to the European Commission setting out our main economic policy measures.

Desmond Swayne: Shocking.

Ruth Kelly: Nevertheless, it is the case.
	It is important that we provide the information. The procedure is set out in articles 99 and 104 of the EC treaty, which relate to the broad economic policy guidelines, convergence and stability programmes and the excessive deficits procedure. The purpose of the reports is to help to ensure that member states' economic policies are consistent with the goals of the treaty. Those goals are set out in article 2, and include non-inflationary economic growth that respects the environment, a high level of employment and social protection, and raising the standard of living and quality of life, as is consistent with the Government's approach to economic policy. Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which is usually known as the Maastricht Act, requires Parliament to approve the Government report that is sent to the Commission for that purpose.
	The Government's strategy for economic policy is set out in the Budget 2001 report. Today we have the opportunity to debate that document, as it will form the basis of the information that we send to the Commission. Sharing the information in the Budget documents with our European partners allows us to influence Europe, and to bring employment and growth to Britain and other member states. Budget 2001 describes the Government's strategy to raise Britain's national economic potential and to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment along with rising living standards for all. The Budget will help to build a stronger economic future for Britain, through reforms that will put work, enterprise and families first.
	The key elements of the Government's economic strategy, as set out in the Budget report, are to deliver macro-economic stability to provide a platform for long-term sustainable growth and employment; to meet the productivity challenge through promoting competition, enterprise, innovation, skills, investment and public sector productivity; to increase employment opportunity for all; to ensure fairness for families and communities; and to ensure a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come, by protecting the environment.
	The Government's first economic priority on coming to office in 1997 was to deliver stability for the long term, with the recognition that economic stability is a precondition for achieving our objective of high and stable growth and employment. We therefore introduced the new macro-economic policy framework, which is based on the principles of transparency, responsibility and accountability. The framework is already promoting economic stability by delivering low inflation and sound public finances.
	We have introduced an open and transparent monetary framework to deliver low and stable inflation; a new fiscal framework based on a prudent approach to the public finances and underpinned by two strict fiscal rules; and a new public spending framework, which is integrated into the fiscal framework, to provide for better long-term planning and ensure a greater focus on the quality of public service provision. We are already seeing the rewards of the new macro-economic framework.

Edward Davey: Will the Economic Secretary remind the House of the Government's policy for the exchange rate within that new macro-economic framework?

Ruth Kelly: The Government want a long-term, stable and competitive exchange rate, and that is exactly what we are working towards, as we seek to provide a foundation of stability based on low inflation and prudent public finances. That is the best way of delivering a platform for stability.
	Inflation in the United Kingdom has been significantly less volatile since 1997lower for longer than at any time since the 1960s, and in line with our target. Now, long-term interest rates are about the lowest for 35 years, reflecting a sustained reduction in inflation expectations.
	The new fiscal framework has put public finances in a healthy and sustainable position. The Government inherited public finances that were in poor shape, yet since 1997 they have been transformed. The Government have cut borrowing by more than 44 billion since 199697. Building on that achievement, the Budget underpins the spending plans set out in the 2000 spending review, and locks in the fiscal tightening of the previous Budget.
	The Government have ensured that we remain on track to meet our fiscal rules, while releasing resources for sustained investment in key public service priorities. Public sector net investment will more than double to 1.8 per cent. of gross domestic product by 200405. The spending review allocations included real average growth of more than 5 per cent. a year from 200001 for education, more than 5 per cent. a year for health, 20 per cent. a year for transport spending in England, and 4.2 per cent. a year for the criminal justice system in England and Wales.
	In the Budget we have been able to allocate an extra 1 billion for education, an extra 1 billion for health and an extra one third of a billion pounds to help to tackle drugs. That is over and above the sustained investment announced in last year's spending review. The Government can provide those resources because of their prudent handling of the economy. Even under the most cautious assumptions, our projections show surpluses on the current Budget in each of the next five years.
	Public sector net debt has fallen from 44 per cent. of GDP in 199697 to 31.8 per cent. at the end of 200001. It is projected to stabilise at about 30 per cent. of GDP for the remainder of the projection period covered in the Budget. That compares with a doubling of the debt burden in the 199297 Parliament. Our prudent approach to the management of public finances means that the debt ratio can be combined with rising public sector investment, thus tackling years of neglect of the public infrastructure.
	A sound and credible platform of economic stability has been achieved under the Government's new frameworks for monetary and fiscal policy. Our commitment to stability and prudence is for a purpose: unemployment is now the lowest since the 1970s; since the 1997 election, employment has risen and unemployment has fallen in every region. Employment has risen by more than 1.2 million since the 1997 election, with more people in work than ever. The United Kingdom is enjoying the longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s.
	Growth of 2.5 per cent. is expected this year, and inflation is expected to remain close to the Government's target in the period ahead. Independent forecasters agree with our assessment.
	The Budget responds to the challenge of meeting the fiscal rules over the economic cycle and underpinning the 2000 spending review by continuing to lock in stability for the long term. The platform of stability provides the basis for raising productivity. Meeting the productivity challenge offers the prospect of higher growth and increased employment opportunities, with low inflation and low interest rates. It is a key route to raising living standards. It is a moment of opportunity for the UK, and a challenge to everyone involved.
	The Government's long-term ambition is to close the productivity gap between the UK and its main competitors. To that end, we have identified five key topics for action: strengthening competition, encouraging enterprise and innovation, creating incentives for investment, investing resources in skills, and working to improve public sector productivity.

Desmond Swayne: Does increasing productivity apply to the public as well as the private sector? The Economic Secretary said that competition was one of the methods of achieving that. Why, therefore, is competition excluded from the public sector?

Ruth Kelly: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to me, he would have noted that I specifically spelled out that we were taking steps to improve public sector productivity. They must go hand in hand with improving our overall competitive position.
	Building on previously announced provisions, the Budget contains a package of measures to help small businesses, including implementing the pre-Budget report proposals to reduce the impact of VAT, reduce their administrative burden and improve their cash flow. Consultation will take place on proposals for a new research and development tax credit for large firms and there will be full financial flexibility for regional development agencies from 200203, matched by increased accountability through objectives and targets to meet their strategic goals.
	We shall be working to make capital markets more efficient by taking forward all the recommendations of the Myners review, addressing distortions in decision making by institutional investors and expanding the scope of enterprise management initiatives. Meeting the challenges of raising productivity and closing the gap with our main competitors will help to raise living standards in the economy as a whole. However, we need to do more to build a fairer society by making work pay, giving families a better deal, and protecting the environment.
	The Government are working to deliver employment opportunity for allthe modern definition of full employmentthereby tackling a significant underlying cause of poverty and deprivation. Our strategy is based on helping people to move from welfare to work, easing the transition to work, making work pay and securing progression once people are in work. Our goal is that by the end of the decade there will be a higher proportion of people in work than ever before.
	The Government have already taken significant steps towards achieving that objective. To help make work pay and to improve work incentives, they have introduced the national minimum wage and a new 10p rate of income tax, cut the basic rate of tax to 22p, and reformed national insurance contributions. For low and middle income families with children, the introduction of the working families tax credit has made a significant difference to family incomes.
	The Budget took action to increase employment opportunities by enhancing the new deal, which has already helped more than 270,000 young people from welfare into work. In the new deal for lone parents there will be further help with training, with starting up in self-employment, and with child care costs. Resources will also be allocated to enhance the new deal and other programmes over the coming three years, focusing on employer needs, on the hardest to help, and on the most disadvantaged areas.
	To help make work pay, the Budget increased the basic credit in the working families tax credit by 5 on top of indexation, and extended the 10p rate of income tax by 300 over and above indexation, helping 2.5 million taxpayers. There is no better time to encourage the long-term unemployed, and those who have become particularly detached from the labour market, back to work. It is estimated that there are 1.2 million vacancies in the economy as a whole.
	The Government continue to work on building a fairer and more inclusive societyin particular by tackling child poverty, helping pensioners, rewarding saving, investing in public services and ensuring that the tax system is fair. Everyone should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential and enjoy the benefits of high, stable economic growth.

Edward Davey: On the Minister's point about reducing child poverty, the Government claimed at the last election that they had taken 1.2 million children out of poverty. However, the latest statistics in a survey published this week showed that those claims were incorrect, and that the Government's measures have taken less than 500,000 children out of poverty. Will the Minister tell the House what extra measures the Government are now proposing to tackle the problem that they have so far failed to address?

Ruth Kelly: I have just been outlining the Government's approach to tackling child poverty. The best way to do it is to provide families with a route into employment, to make work pay and to provide a ladder of opportunity for families so that people can continue to progress once they are in work. That is the simplest and best way to tackle child poverty at its root, and it is what we are doing.
	The Budget takes further steps towards creating a fairer society. The Government are taking action to boost the incomes of hard-working families, and helping families when their children are very young. Building on record increases in child benefit, the Government introduced the children's tax credit, worth up to 520 a year for about 5 million tax-paying families, and, recognising the additional costs of a new child in the first year, in April 2002 we will increase that to 20 a week for families in the year of a child's birth. All those measures will have a significant impact on tackling child poverty.
	The Budget also includes a package of measures on maternity pay and parental leave, including increases in the flat rate of statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance, paid adoption leave from 2003 and a doubling of the threshold for small employer relief, so that about 60 per cent. of all firms paying statutory maternity pay each year can reclaim their costs in full, plus compensation. There will also be a further increase in the sure start maternity grant from April 2002.
	The Budget includes a major package of measures to boost pensioner incomes, acting to end pensioner poverty and ensuring that all pensioners share in the rising prosperity of the nation.
	As well as the measures announced in the pre-Budget report, from April 2003 the Budget raises the age-related income tax personal allowances over and above indexation, and through the remainder of the Parliament will raise those allowances by reference to rises in earnings rather than prices. About 1 million savers, many of whom are pensioners, will benefit from the widening of the 10p income tax band, which will apply to savings income. From April this year, the average pensioner household will be 600 a year better off than in 1997 as a result of the personal tax and benefit changes introduced during the last Parliament.
	The Government are building a stronger economic future for Britain. That gives a better deal for the people of Britain. It will help us to meet our objectives of high and stable growth and employment and a fairer society for all. Those are the right economic policies for Britain. They are also in line with the objectives of the European Union.
	Approving the motion will enable the United Kingdom to meet its treaty obligations, provide information and participate fully in the important process of multilateral surveillance and economic co-operation, as provided for in articles 99 and 104 of the treaty. I hope that the House will support the motion.

Oliver Letwin: I begin by welcoming the Economic Secretary to the Dispatch Box and her new post. There is a distinct risk, which worries some on this side of the House, that she might prove to be a distinguished occupant of that post, but time will tell.
	The motion is highly misleading. It has hardly anything to do with the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, but much to do with the Red Book. It is a bizarre feature of our constitutional arrangements that, having debated the Budget for I do not know how many days, we return to it for a 90-minute debate when most good folk are asleep and nobody is paying the slightest attention. That probably explains why the Economic Secretary, despite her world-renowned intellectual prowess, chose to re-read a speech that has undoubtedly been concocted on other occasions.

Andrew Smith: It is a good speech.

Oliver Letwin: It is an excellent speech. It was good first time round and it will be good next time round, but unfortunately it told us little that is new. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will probably be the only person in England who is listening to me by the time that I finish my remarks, I hope that you

Andrew Smith: Try the 20 billion.

Oliver Letwin: I shall eschew that pleasure. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will bear with me if I depart from the norm and make an argument about the real subject of the motionthe assessment of the UK economy that is in the Red Book. I should correct myself immediately: I want to make an argument about the assessment of the UK economy that is not in the Red Book.
	It is a strange feature of our world that the old Budget report was renamed when the 1993 Act was passed. It is now called the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and Financial Statement and Budget Report. The reason for that is to enable us to conform to the need to report to the European Communities on our economic and fiscal strategy and, indeed, the background to ithence the assessment. Alas, however, only the name changed, not the contents. There never was a real assessment of the economic scene in those documents and there is not now.
	Let me begin at the beginning with points of agreement. We share aims, but that is a turn up for the books. There was a time when we did not share aims. There was a time when Labour Governments and Labour Oppositions had other aims that led to gross inflation, the ownership of the means of production by the state on an increasing scale, the prevalence of trade unionism and I know not what other glorious and golden goals.
	Thank goodnessI mean this genuinely, thank goodnesswe now live in a world that is more difficult for Conservative politicians because there is much in it that we share. That is well expressed in the new article 2 of the treaty on European Union, which, as the Economic Secretary said, specifically states that we are to seek
	a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment . . . a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion.
	Who in their right mind could conceivably object to that?

Eric Forth: I thought that at this point I would ask my hon. Friend what, on the face of it, may seem a banal question. If the economic indicators of most of our continental European partners were heading in the wrong direction, would we still want our economy to converge with them? The words that my hon. Friend has just read out imply convergence at any price. Surely my hon. Friend does not believe that we should readily mould our policies with the aim of converging in an adverse direction. Will he make that quite clear?

Oliver Letwin: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, although I disagree with him about the interpretation of the words that I read out. As the record will show, I specifically left out a phrase in new article 2, which speaks of
	a high degree of convergence of economic performance.
	I did not read out that phrase, because I do not believe that that is a shared aim. However, the rest of the article that I read out is a shared aim. I do not believe that a high degree of convergence of economic performance is a shared aim because I do not believe that economies convergethey sometimes cross like ships in the night, as the economies of the north-east and the south-east of Britain have from time to time. Moreover, I do not believe it is a shared aim for the very reasons that my right hon. Friend gave. Convergence is good only if performance converges on the good.
	We also agree with the Government about aims. On page 1 of the Budget report, the Government state that the aims of their strategy are
	delivering macroeconomic stability;
	meeting the productivity challenge;
	increasing employment opportunity for all;
	ensuring fairness for families and communities; and
	protecting the environment.
	Those could have been the stated aims of any Conservative Administration in the past 40 years, and we share those aims. The problem we are discussing is not about aims: it is a problem about means and about our understanding of where we stand today.
	The picture that the Economic Secretary painted of the economy was not so much glowing as utterly goldena Midas picture in which nothing was wrong and nothing was worrying. In her description, we benefited from sustained and permanent growth, with low inflation, ever higher productivity and greater employment. From her descriptionI know that she does not believe thisone might have thought that the world around us was rosy in every respect.
	That is odd, because her colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was quoted in The Sunday Times as saying:
	There are risks in the world economy at the moment. The downturn in the world economy has not reached its bottom. It is in many ways far more severe than we expected a few months ago because it has spread from America, in particular to Germany and, of course, we have no growth at all in Japan.
	The Chancellor was right about that.
	A week later, in the same journal, Stephen Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, put it rather more bluntly:
	We have been warning of this possibility since the start of the year, but now it's time to make it official. The world is in recession.
	There is a great difference between the surroundings of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom itself, which, as the Economic Secretary rightly said, is not in recession. However, the world as a whole is in dreadful difficulties.
	Last year, the economy of the United States grew by 5 per cent., whereas this year it is expected to grow by less than 2 per cent. US manufacturing is in recession, retail sales have slowed, capital investment is way down, US trade figures are down and there is all the reason in the world to suppose that those effects will be exported. The Chancellor was absolutely right about Japan, whose growth is unlikely to exceed 1 per cent. for the next two or three years. Germany is afraid that growth may plunge to zero in the second quarter of this year. Growth in the euro zone in the past 12 months is down a full percentage point on the previous year, and industrial production has slowed. That is why the European Central Bank has had to revise its growth forecast downwards, and Euro- inflation at 3 per cent. is well above target. Meanwhile, we have the oil problems. If the Economic Secretary had not read that speech, but had chosen to take another one off the shelf, she would have recognised all those phenomena.
	The fact is that the world in which we live is risky and difficult economically at present, and we must ask ourselves whether the United Kingdom economy is structured to resist the difficulties. Can we be not just confident butif I may be somewhat impolite, as the Economic Secretary wasalmost complacent about our economy's condition, or have we problems of our own that need attention?
	The Economic Secretary's view on that was in line with the Red Book. It is possible to comb the Red Book repeatedly and endlesslyas Labour Members will know, during the election I had a bit of time in which to ponder things repeatedly and endlesslybut nowhere in the palimpsest is it possible to find a description of the real difficulties facing the British economy. That may have nothing to do with the fact that it was produced by Her Majesty's Government, or again it may have something to do with that. One way or another, however, the problem is that it does not reveal the current state of affairs.
	I want to dwell on a specific phrase in article 2 of the treaty, which will not upset my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Article 2 refers to
	a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities.
	We are meant to agree to report tonight that the House accepts that the assessment of the British economy in the document referred to is right, and shows that there is a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities in this country. I wonder whether, on reflection, the Economic Secretary would want to advance that argument. I should be very surprised if the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) wanted to do so, and I certainly do not. I want to advance the opposite argument, because I think it fairly clear that the UK economy currently suffers from some serious imbalances. Many of them have been obscured over the past four years by the Government's undoubted achievements in macro-economic, monetary and fiscal control; but, beneath that, there is a worrying picture of imbalance.
	Let me explainat rather tedious length, to get the thing on the recordwhat I mean by imbalance. First, there are the regional imbalances. In April this year, unemployment levels in the UK as a whole averaged 5 per cent. That is not a good record in comparison with those of one or two other countries, but it is much better than has sometimes been the case. Nevertheless, it disguises vast regional discrepancies. At the same time, unemployment in the south-east of England was 3.3 per cent., and in the north-east it was 7.7 per cent.more than double the level in the south-east. Indeed, it is clear that the averages in the north-east, London, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are completely different from those inif I can put it this waythe rest of England.
	Such a regional imbalance may not be deeply worrying in itself, although I suppose it would be difficult for the Government to maintain that they were not somewhat worried, because they continue their regional policy. It is a long-established doctrine that the main purpose of regional policy is to even out regional imbalances, rather than to create wealth in itself: that has been a Treasury doctrine for many years. If that is the case, it must also be the case that the Government have some worries about regional imbalance, because they clearly cannot be operating a policy aimed at removing a problem that they do not consider to be a problem.
	But alas, regional imbalances are not the only or, indeed, the most serious imbalances that the economy currently suffers. A much more serious issue is the trade imbalance. I am sure that inside the Treasury the Economic Secretary and her colleagues spend much time discussing the trade imbalance; it would be unusual were they not to do so. However, I did not hear much reference to the trade imbalance in the Economic Secretary's speech. That is surprising, because the trade imbalance is not a small matter. It is not even a medium-sized matter. It is enormous.
	The trade in goods in 2000 as a whole was in deficit by 28.8 billion. In the first quarter of this year, it was in deficit by 7.4 billion. Even when the surpluses in services are taken into account, the total trade in goods and services was almost 18 billion in deficit last year and almost 5 billion in deficit in the first quarter of this year. Those are large numbers that have persisted for some time and have been growing. The imbalance has existed for almost five years now. I checked earlier today and it is not since 1870 that a trade imbalance has afflicted the UK economy for so long.

Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the existence of a regulatory mechanism between economiessuch as a variable exchange ratehas always been the mechanism by which, over the long term, trade imbalances can be corrected? He will know that that was the case for historic variations between the pound sterling and the dollar, or the yen or the continental currencies. Has he given any thought to the significance of the possibility that we will join the euro and our possible inability then to correct the trade imbalance that he is discussing?

Oliver Letwin: My right hon. Friend is right that one of the ways in which the trade imbalance traditionally corrects itself is through an improvement in the terms of tradethrough exchange rate differentials. If the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton were right, and his party could achieve a reduction in the exchange rate, through a miracle of some sort, followed by a locking-in at a lower exchange rate, that would help to cure the imbalance. However, if we were forced to lock in at a higher exchange rate, as I suspect would happen, we would lock in the imbalance for some time.
	The trade imbalance that we face is not likely to be cured by a shift in the exchange rate in the near future. It might be, but I doubt that the Economic Secretary would claim that that will happen. When the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton asked a genuine question in the middle of her brilliant but old-fashioned speech, she was unwilling to engage in debate with him about the right level of exchange rate. That was, I suspect, because the Government have eschewed the idea of targeting a specific exchange rate. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt raise that subject later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we may yet hear that fascinating debate. However, I suspect that the Government are probably wary, as they have been for the past four years, of trying to set an exchange rate, which, as my right hon. Friend says, makes it odd that they are nevertheless talking about trying to join the euro.

Edward Davey: When does the hon. Gentleman think that the floating exchange rate that we now have in the UK will start to address those imbalances, and when does he expect the depreciation before the automatic adjustment on which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is so keen?

Oliver Letwin: The answer is that I, like the hon. Gentleman, do not know. I suspect that there will have to be a restraint of domestic demand, which I will come to shortly, rather than a change in the exchange rate. We will see. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me, because it is true and a matter of fact, that there is a major trade imbalance, which has persisted for an extraordinarily long period. Trade imbalances can last for extraordinarily long periods if they are financeable and, at present, ours is. I am not seeking to make any apocalyptic statementthat would be quite false. Our trade imbalance is being happily financed, but markets are fickle and moods change. Whether one can continue to finance that kind of trade imbalance for very much longer is open to question.
	If we merely had a regional and a trade imbalance, the situation would be noteworthy but not as serious as the real one. We face another kind of imbalance, more serious in many ways than either of those. We have a two-speed economy. Production industries grew in the last quarter, the first quarter of the year, by 0.7 per cent., at a time when, as the Economic Secretary made clear, the economy as a whole is growing at more than 2 per cent. and the service sectorso-calledat more than 3.7 per cent. There is a huge imbalance between two major parts of our economy.
	I am making my case stronger by making it weaker in the sense of not taking into account the exceptional cases, such as those that affect my constituency. A recession is going on in agriculture; the industry has seen negative growth for a very long time. There has been a minor recession in the construction industry for a rather shorter period.
	There is a massive imbalance between various sectors of the economy. In fact, I suspect that it is understated by the figures that are typically used. The term service, as the Economic Secretary will be aware from her previous work with the Bank of England, which has done some noteworthy work in this field, is widely abused in the sense that it covers a multitude of things. Some are really other forms of industrial production such as telecoms software manufacture, while some are pure services in the sense of human beings looking after one another. I suspect, although I do not know, that disentangling the one from the other would show a further imbalance that accentuates the nature of the imbalances across the economy as a whole. I suspect that the pure services sector is growing even faster than 3.7 per cent., because some things classed as services, such as software, are, if not in positive decline, nevertheless growing very slowly.
	The Economic Secretary painted a picture of continuous and unalloyed bliss across the economy. Instead, the economy suffers from marked and continuing regional imbalances, from a growing, prolonged and unprecedented trade imbalance and from significant discrepancies between various sectors of the economy in their rate of growth or decline.
	If that were all, the situation would be bad enough, but it is not all. The economy is afflicted by another very serious imbalancethat between the corporate and domestic sectors. It is quite a striking imbalance. Over the past five years, output has risen by 14.7 per cent.; domestic demand has risen by 20 per cent. We have a major problem with profits. It is affecting, and previously prospectively affected, the stock market. James Hall, the managing partner of Accenture, the strangely named management accountancy firm, says:
	What we are seeing is a slowdown in both manufacturing and service sectors that depend on demand from businesses.
	At the same time, figures from Experian, an information service company, show that the United Kingdom is experiencing its longest period of falling profitability since the early 1990s.
	Profitability measured by the average return on capital has fallen for seven successive quarters. In the business sector, therefore, and the business-to-business sector, which depends on business, there are major problems with profitability, whereas domestic household demand remains high. To be tedious about the matter and to remind you, Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am sure that, by now, you are the only one awakewe have regional imbalances, trade imbalances, an imbalance of services versus industrial production and a significant and sustained imbalance of the corporate sector versus the domestic sector.
	I regret that the tale does not end there, because we also have a serious imbalance in domestic savings, which is the flip side of the coin of strong domestic demand. I fear that we have made that point on numerous occasions, but it remains true. In the first quarter of this year, the savings ratio in this country dropped to 4.1 per cent. Last year, in the previous Red Book, the Treasury correctly noted that there were problems ahead if the savings ratio remained low; it has remained extremely low by historical standards and today is less than half what it was in 1997. We therefore have regional imbalances and trade imbalances; we have imbalances between production and service industries, between the corporate and domestic sector, and between saving and household expenditure.
	That is not a balanced development of economic activities. When one thinks about it, it is astonishing that the Economic Secretaryone of the few people to occupy such a post who understands these mattersmade a speech about the 2001 Red Book and the governance of the United Kingdom economy without mentioning those five vital and worrying features of our current economic circumstances. That worries me because, if she and her colleagues are not attending to those imbalances, they may become more, rather than less, worrying.
	The situation is worse than being merely imbalanced. The next item on which we, the Government and all right-thinking people agree is that, in the words of article 2 of the treaty on European Union, we wish to achieve and maintain
	a high level of employment.
	We have a high level of employment; we have had rising employment and falling unemploymentworthy things of which the Economic Secretary was proud and made much. Alas, when one looks behind the current statistics and tries to get a sense of what is going on in the real economy, again, there are worrying signs.
	The average earnings index in the first four months of this year for the whole economy showed year-on-year percentage changes starting at 4.5 per cent. in January and rising to 5.2 per cent by April; the Economic Secretary may well have more up-to-date figures at her command. Over the whole of 2000, annualised average rates of 4 to 5 per cent. were in evidence. To a moderate degree, wage inflation is with us. However, the marginal utility of labour, which will critically affect the long-term propensity of the economy to generate employment or otherwise is not just affected by wage rates. As the Economic Secretary is clearly aware, it is also affected by on-costs, the social costs of labour, the effects of productivitywhich, alas, has not risen nearly as fast as we had hopedand the ability of firms to be more productive in their use of labour and to find ways of making more from their labour. It is in that last respect that the biggest worries arise, and I shall come to them in a moment.
	The particular employment problems that we see over the horizon are more likely to arise in small and medium firms than in large firms. Our economy is out of balance in another respect: the effects of Government action, which I shall describe in a moment, on the largest firms have almost certainly been less accentuated than on the small and medium firms, and it is in the small and medium-firm sector that we would expect to find sustained growth of employment.
	In fact, over the past few years, the rate of increase in employment and the rate of decrease in unemployment have not been as sparkling as we might have hoped, given the overall growth in demand. They have not been as sparkling as they had been in the previous few years under the previous Administration at an earlier point in the economic cycle and not as sparkling as in many other countries.
	Not only is our economy imbalanced in many ways, but it is not showing the growth of employment and the reduction of unemployment that we would have hoped for under such apparently benign economic circumstances. We must now ask ourselves whether the Government are doing something about all this. Does the Red Book, which does not describe any of what I have just described, or the Economic Secretary, who did not describe any of what I have just described, have a strategy to deal with those matters?
	Is there something in the Red Book or was there something in the Economic Secretary's speech to address those imbalances? I have to say that I may have gone to sleepthat is unlikely because the Economic Secretary's mellifluous tones are always sufficient to keep me awakebut I did not notice anything in her speech about a strategy to deal with those problems. It is not surprising, as she did not mention the problems, that she did not mention the solutions, but the fact is that there was no such strategy. Search as I might, with however much leisure the Chief Secretary may have been able to give during the election, I was unable to find in the Red Book any strategy for solving those problems there either.
	The fact is that we have a Government of elegant ostriches; they are hiding their head in the sand of their own achievements; hence they do not see the problems to which I have alluded and, as a consequence, they do not even begin to have developed a strategy to deal with them. They are officially unproblems, thus there are unsolutions for them. However, the situation is worse than that because, at least in respect of the level of employment, the Government are taking active, well formulated, strategically designed steps to accentuate the problem.
	The comments of external observers are extremely instructive. In March this year, Herr Bernd Atenstaedt of the German Industry Association in the United Kingdom said:
	we see the first signs of an increase in regulations, which will make Britain less attractive as a location.
	He means, of course, as a location for investment, hence for the generation of jobs.

Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the slight reduction in the rate of increase in employment is matched by an increase in the growth and productivity that would be expected as we approach full employment? On the point about German growth, does he accept that the International Monetary Fund's latest forecasts show a 40 per cent. reduction in German growth and a halving in United States growth and that, in fact, our growth is holding up very well at about 2.6 per cent., compared with Treasury forecasts of 2.5 per cent.? The basic point is that we are very strong indeed in the world scenario and that we need no lectures from the Germans.

Oliver Letwin: I shall soon come to some lectures, given by some Englishmen, although I do not share the hon. Gentleman's xenophobia. Had he been present at the beginning of my remarks he would have heard

Geraint Davies: I watched it on television.

Oliver Letwin: Had the hon. Gentleman not been moving between the one and the other, he would have heard me acknowledge the truth of his remark that there has been a huge slowdown in many other parts of the world and that, so far, we have been remarkably insulated. The whole tenor of my arguments is that there are worrying signs that we may not sustain that magnificent isolation from world events. I do not predict that we cannot; we do not know. I hope that we can and, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, we have so far. I am portraying the worrying signs.
	Mr. Bernd Atenstaedt's remarks about our economy were not made because he is a German but because he is an educated economist. The British Chambers of Commercehardly a group of Germanssays about the United Kingdom economy:
	The bottom line is that the sheer quantity of red tape on business is damaging our economy, stifling enterprise, job creation and economic growth.
	In June 2000, Ruth Lea of the Institute of Directors said:
	If this Government is interested in strangling business in red tape, it is succeeding. Some bosses are having to give up a day a week to cope with all the regulations.
	I could go on rather tediously quoting such sources.

Desmond Swayne: Is not the opinion of the Germans, whom the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) mentioned, important in so far as foreign opinion is currently financing the trade imbalance?

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend is right and, to be serious about the issue of xenophobia, the UK has always depended heavily on a large amount of external investment. It is one of our proudest achievements that, in our period in office, we reached the stage that more was invested externally in the UK than in the whole of the rest of continental Europe. I do not know, but I suspect that that may still be the case. We certainly depend on external investment.
	This country also depends on internal investment and what attracts the external investor attracts the internal investorthe entrepreneur within the UKand vice versa. The regulations and red tape that have been introduced are beginning to have a serious effect in eroding confidence in small and medium-sized enterprises and the people who are thinking of investing in them. That is a worrying sign. That problem is not being imposed on us from without nor has it grown within the market or the private sector. It has been imposed on the market by the Government.
	There are many other sources from which one can glean the same picture. In the past year, the House passed 3,865 new regulations which, I think, is the highest figure on record. In March this year, an edition of Forbes contained a damning article on the present Government's fondness for regulation under the title Tony Blair's Red Tape Factory. In a survey of Institute of Directors' members after the pre-Budget statement, 90 per cent. said that the Chancellor had not done much to reduce the regulatory burden on business and 44 per cent. of companies cited the regulatory burden as a barrier to growth. One can go on and on.
	What the Government have done, continue to do andfrom all one cam tell from the Economic Secretary's remarksare happy to do is to continue regulating ever increasingly the small and medium sector, which is the sector that gives rise to employment growth. They ignore regional and trade imbalances and imbalances between production and services, between the domestic and corporate sectors and between savings and the creation of extra jobs. They adopt no strategy to deal with the imbalances but a positive strategy to worsen the difficulties that small firms face in generating new jobs at the rate that we require.
	I am glad to say that I am nearing the end of my remarks. The Government are serious about their fiscal strategy and they have allowed the Bank of England to be serious about the control of the money supply. However, if they were also serious about making it their business to deal with the serious structural problems that affect the economy, the Economic Secretary would have made a speech about that issue. She would not have said what I said, but she would have acknowledged the problems and told us what the strategies were for dealing with them. The fact that she has not is, I suspect, due not to her ineptitude, but to the fact that the Government do not have any such strategies. That is the most worrying trend of all.

Edward Davey: We need to remember the purpose of this debate, on which the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) touched at the beginning of his remarks. Our job is to scrutinise the documents that the United Kingdom sends to the European Commission. The ability to do so is the result of a Eurosceptic amendment to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 on the Maastricht treaty tabled by Conservative Back Benchers who were not terribly happy with their Government, who they thought were too Euro-friendly.
	We must question why the amendment was tabledit is a fairly good oneand why we should be scrutinising such documents. Presumably, we wanted to ensure that the UK's contributions to the debate about the eurozone and the European Union economy are well founded. That is an important part of what Ministers do at ECOFIN. We wanted to ensure that the information that our EU partners have about the UK economy is sound, so that we can improve their knowledge and understanding of it. One would have thought also that we wanted to ensure that the information that we send to our European partners would assist and enhance the UK's negotiating position in the different EU economic forums.

Oliver Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that almost certainly those who tabled the amendment did not imagine that the Red Book would be re-labelled the assessment and we would find ourselves debating the same item twice?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, anticipates what I was about to say. The Red Book is certainly not written for such purposes; it is written for a domestic audience. In the last Parliament, it was not really an account of what was going on in the UK economy and public finances. Increasingly, it is becoming a document of Government spin and propaganda. The Budget 2001 document was a Panglossian pre-election propaganda sheet. It was hardly a detailed addition to economic analysis of the UK economy and public finances. That was pointed out at the time, it was a shame at the time, and to try several months later to send it off to Brussels and Strasbourg as a fair reflection of what is going on in the UK economy is total nonsense. The idea that we should approve the motion is also nonsense.
	Let us consider how the document performs the three roles to which I have referred. Does it contribute to the debate on the EU economy? The EU economy is hardly mentioned in the document. We have analysis of Group of Seven activity and analysis of the United States economy, which is understandable and one of the better parts of the document, but nothing to do with the EU. Box 3.2 describes European economic reform following the Lisbon summit, but that is all about micro-economics and long-term productivity issues, which are important but hardly relevant to the debate of macro-economic trends in the EU to which the UK should be contributing.
	If we are bothered about influencing debates and the positions of our EU partners, surely we should be sending documents that give our view on what they are doing. This House should be debating what the Government are proposing to tell our EU partners about how their economies are performing and the eurozone is going. We are not given such information or a chance to debate a very important matter. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Government should be writing those documents, presenting them to the House and sending them to Brusselsnot this absolute nonsense.
	Does the document improve the knowledge of our EU partners of the UK economy? Clearly it does not, as the hon. Gentleman set out in great detail. For obvious reasons, it is out of date. Presumably it was written in January or February and many changes have taken place in the United Kingdom and the world economies since then. For example, paragraph 2.26 on page 24 of the Red Book states:
	Manufacturing output growth was the fastest for six years, but continued to lag behind the expansion in services.
	The document makes other references to how the manufacturing sector is doing quite well. However, according to national statistics for the first quarter of this year, manufacturing output fell by 0.7 per cent. That is a worrying development, but it is not mentioned in the Red Book, which is again Panglossian about an important sector of the UK economy.
	The Chancellor used to go on about manufacturing when he was in opposition. An evening did not seem to go by without him appearing before a television camera telling us about the importance of that industry. He seems to have forgotten that now that he is in government. His policies do not seem to be developing the manufacturing sectorthe document is clearly remiss on that.
	I shall not go on about the imbalances, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) did. I share his analysisit is good that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have that in common. However, the document clearly failed to improve our EU partners' knowledge and understanding of the UK economy. At the summit after its publication, the forecasts for the UK's public finances for 2005-06 were available and the Chancellor was rapped over the knuckles by our EU partners in the Commission for running a sustained deficit of 1 per cent. of gross domestic product. His remarks when he returned were terse. He said that our EU partners had got it wrong; they did not understand that his approach was cautious and prudent and that the deficit related only to investment.
	I think that the Chancellor was right. I understand why he was so annoyed by the EU partners and the UK press coverage of what they said. It goes to show that the document does not properly explain the UK position. It is not written for that purpose. If we want to ensure that our EU partners understand the UK strategy, we should write a document that tries to do that. The Government are failing in their mission.
	I imagine that the Minister will say that the Commission was worried about the UK's performance not against the Maastricht criteria, but against the broad economic policy guidelines. They are vague and have no binding effect if a country breaches them, and she would be right to explain that. Nevertheless, there is no mention of those broad economic policy guidelines in the document or of how the UK is performing against them. There is not even a proper analysis of how it is performing against the Maastricht criteria. The document has no intention of addressing the purpose for which it is supposed to be approved by the House. Again, it fails in its prime purpose.
	The third reason why we might want to send the document to the Commission and our EU partners is to enhance the UK's position in future negotiations and discussions about what is in the interests of the UK economy, perhaps because we are thinking of negotiations in the run-up to a possible entry to the single currency. The most important negotiations in the next few years are those on UK entry, except that the document is almost silent on that. There is a box on EMU preparations taken solely by the UK Treasury within the domestic economy, but it has nothing to do with negotiations or the exchange rate. That is where the document is most lacking.
	I spent an interesting 15 minutes prior to the debate trying to find references to the exchange rate. They were difficult to find. Perhaps I missed a few references in my brief flick through the document, but the first mention of the exchange rate that I found was on page 163. One might have thought that the exchange rate would be rather more important in the assessment of economic policy, but it merited no earlier mention than that.

Oliver Letwin: We cannot allow this golden opportunity to pass without asking the hon. Gentleman whether he would like to statefor the first time ever, I thinkwhether the Liberal Democrat party also has an exchange rate policy, and if so, what is the target exchange rate?

Edward Davey: I am sorry to disabuse the hon. Gentleman, but in several speeches Liberal Democrats have explained our exchange rate policy. In the debate on the economic aspects of the Queen's Speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) set out our policy clearly, but so that the hon. Gentleman does not have to consult Hansard, I shall remind him of what my hon. Friend said.
	About 18 months ago, the Liberal Democrats commissioned a panel of experts to consider what preparations the UK should makeincluding in respect of the exchange ratebefore putting the question on joining the single currency to the people. That panel proposed a range of values1.25 to 1.45 euros to the poundat which it thought that, if the UK entered the single currency, it would do so at a competitive rate.
	That conclusion was published about a year ago, so it might now be out of date, but our aim in appointing the panel and publishing its conclusions was to start a debate in this country on what might be a sustainable long-term exchange rate for the pound against the euro. That is a debate in which we would be happy to engage and one in which we hope the Conservatives and the Government will engage as well, because it is extremely important that we start to influence our EU partners in terms of a sustainable rate.

Oliver Letwin: I did not ask the hon. Gentleman what rate his panel of expertsof which I was awarethought might be appropriate for entry. I asked what is the target exchange rate. Let me put it this way: would the hon. Gentleman sponsor measures to manipulate the UK exchange rate to that target rate; and if so, what measures?

Edward Davey: Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell. Liberal Democrats have said that the very fact of the Government saying that they intend to join the single currency and putting the issue to the people will cause a market correction.
	If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, I refer him to events that took place several weeks ago. After the Labour Government were re-elected, the markets assumed that it was more likely that the UK would enter the single currency and the pound-euro rate adjusted very quickly. Bizarrely, Her Majesty's Treasury and the Bank of England stepped in to stop a depreciation in the pound, even though that depreciation was welcomed by the manufacturing sector, agriculture and the tourism sector throughout the countryindeed, it was a depreciation that people had been seeking for some time.

Paul Tyler: Including people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Edward Davey: Indeed, including people in the hon. Gentleman's West Dorset constituency. That was a valuable depreciation. That chain of events reinforces our argument that if the British Government could come clean and get rid of the ambiguity that surrounds their positionit is the only thing about their position that is clearthe markets would adjust. Then, we could begin a debate with the markets, with our EU partners and within the House on what would be a sustainable rate at which we might enter the single currency.

Oliver Letwin: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall not pursue this issue more than one step further, but it is important that we know the answer and we appear to be getting somewhere. If the medicine that he has just recommended did not, in his view, cure the patientin other words, if the statement of a target rate of entry did not produce an adjustment to that ratewhat other active steps, if any, would the Liberal Democrats recommend taking to manipulate the exchange rate?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman should talk to those of his colleagues who set the rate for sterling when we went into the exchange rate mechanism. They did not have measures to manipulate the rate; instead, the Government fixed a rate. Unfortunately, when fixing the rate, they failed to carry out proper negotiations with our EU partners and the other members of the exchange rate mechanism. Instead, in a move that caused great problems, they told our EU partners, That's the rate we're going to go for.
	To answer the hon. Gentleman, it is possible that the Government could take that line. If they did not think that the market rate was correctthat it was either too low or too highthey could set a rate by negotiation with our EU partners. Indeed, that is what several countries did in the run-up to the adoption of the euro in mainland Europe. They made clear their decisions as to which direction they wanted to take, so the markets glided into sustainable rates.
	The problem, and the problem with the document, is that the UK Government are not attempting to do that: there is no attempt to influence the medium-term equilibrium exchange rate for sterling and to ensure that our negotiations are built on past statements. Both last year and the year before that, I made that point in Committees that were undertaking a similar function to the one in which we are currently engaged. At that time, the Red Book seemed extremely complacent about the exchange rateworryingly sobecause the rate was causing such great problems. However, the Government's pronouncements in the Red Book seemed to deny those problems. I pointed out to the Government that it was against Britain's long-term interest to send documents to Brussels and Strasbourg stating that the current rate of exchange was not a problem.
	When those negotiations take place, our European partners will be able to dust down those documents, which we think are of no concern, and will say to the UK Government, Hold on. In 1999, in 2000, in 2001, you sent us a document which said that the exchange rate was not a problem. You said that it was not affecting your tradeable sector, your agriculture and your tourism. That would weaken our hand in negotiations. It is a very silly thing to do.

Barry Gardiner: Although I hesitate to support the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has still not answered the question about Liberal Democrat policy: if the markets did not glide into the appropriate exchange rate that he identifies as Liberal policy, what further active measuresif anydoes he suggest that a Liberal Government would pursue in order to achieve that effect?

Edward Davey: Let me surprise the House by giving the hon. Gentleman a direct answer. He was not listening properly to my reply to the hon. Member for West Dorset. We would negotiate a rate. The rate would be fixed when we decided. That rate could be higher or lower than the rate obtaining in the market at the time. We should have to see what the rate would be.
	The serious point is that this document, which we propose sending to Brussels and Strasbourg, will be of no benefit for the long-term negotiating position of UK Ministerswhatever the Government. We are saying to our European partners that we are happy with sterling so over-valued. That message will come to haunt us.
	When the House votes on the motion, Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches will vote against it. The document does the Government no favours in the way that it sets out the UK's economic position for our EU partners. That will prejudice the long-term interests of this country.

Desmond Swayne: My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) was forensic in exposing the imbalances in the economy to which the Financial Secretary did not draw attention. I share one particular view with my hon. Friend: I am not too concerned about a trade imbalance, if it can be financed. It is worth remembering that even when this country was at the height of its economic power, as the workshop of the world, we persistently ran a balance of trade deficit on merchandise trade. At the time, that was largely financed by services, especially shipping. Now, of course, it is financed largely by inflows of capital. With the willingness to continue to finance that will come the adjustment in the exchange rate necessary to correct the overall merchandise trade imbalance. That is the economic theory. The reality will be rather less pleasant, as the correction is not necessarily one to which we should look forward in terms of its consequences for the real economy and real jobs.
	I shall concentrate on a slightly different aspect of the Minister's remarks. She set out cogently the objectives of the processto maintain quality of life and what she called a high level of social protection. She drew attention to the Government's ability to spend, for example, 1 billion more on the health service as a consequence of the Budget.
	The Government's chosen measure of that high level of social protection and high quality of life is the health service. That is reflected in the Prime Minister's words when he promised the people world-class public services. In other words, we must compare our public services with the best. In comparisons in terms of outcomes, we are way behind those in whose league we should be. The Government, however, have chosen to measure by input and throughput. The input measure that they chose was the average spend as a proportion of gross national product on, for example, health care.
	The hon. Lady's 1 billion will not take us very far. The Government chose as a measure the average EU spend on health, but their method of measuring the average was a little awry. For example, according to the Government, the way to measure the average health expenditure of Belgium and Germany is to add the two together and divide by twonot a very precise measure of actual expenditure in those two economies on any weighted basis.
	The other trick is to include the United Kingdom in that equation, so that our lacklustre performance brings down the average that is to be our target. If we removed those distortions from the Government's calculations, I suggest that to reach the level of gross national product spend that should be the Government's target if they adhere to the criterion of world-class public services, they would need to spend another 20 billion a year. To make that up would require much more than the 1 billion to which the hon. Lady drew attention. A 30 per cent. increase in income tax would be necessary.
	The Government have ruled out the possibility of that additional resource coming from any source other than public revenue. The proportion of GNP spent by other European Governments on health is broadly the same. The difference comes from the additional resources that our economic partners get largely from private sources, which we continue to deny ourselves. On 26 June the Secretary of State for Health said in the Chamber that happily, health provision in this country is through a monopoly supplier in the form of the NHS, and so long as there is a Labour Government, that will remain.

John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Surely the phenomenon on the continent that he describes is not evanescent; it is enduring. Given the advances in medical science, which we welcome, and the corollarythat whenever we devise a new cure, we create a new queuewe ought properly to focus on the way in which private resources can effectively complement the role of public provision in turning care from a word to a deed.

Desmond Swayne: That is an important point. My concern about the Government's determination to retain a monopoly in respect of health care arose from what the Economic Secretary said about the need to increase productivity. She said that she intended to increase productivity, and to do so in the public sector in particular. That prompted my intervention, but she did not answer my question, as it concerned the role of competition. She drew attention to the fact that we needed more competition to achieve greater productivity. However, my question is this: how does that fit in with monopoly supply in the public sector? If Labour Members believe that monopoly supply is the way to produce greater productivity and a better public service, they belong in a mausoleum in Red square, rather than in a modern economy. That is what the Soviets believed, but such a system did not work or deliver.
	Let me move from that particular measure to the general rationale for the debate. The decision to publish information to be supplied to the European Union as a measure of our economic performance is not made in a vacuum. It has an aim that stems from the Maastricht treaty, whose overwhelming purpose was to secure economic and monetary union. The purpose of publishing the information and supplying it to the European Union is to provide a measure of our performance in reaching the objective of economic and monetary union.
	It was on that score that the Economic Secretary's speech was entirely lacking. She made not the slightest mention of such measurement, but it is especially important, as the Government will at some stage publish their estimate of how the United Kingdom economy is converging. It would have been interesting to have been given in this debate at least some measure of how that process is proceeding, but such information was entirely absent from her speech, which was the feast without Banquo's ghost in that respect.
	If the purpose of the Government's policy is, as we must assume, to secure an increase in economic growth over time that is steady rather than variablein other words, to try to iron out some of the variances in the trade cycle by providing a stimulus in the trough when unemployment is increasing and a restraint at the top when full employment is approachedthe issue of convergence is vital. For that policy to continue if we have the same interest rate as our Union partners, as would happen if we were to achieve the objective of economic and monetary union, it would be vital for those economies to move in the same economic cycle, so that the troughs and peaks coincided. It would be necessary to ensure not only that the stimulus of a reduced interest rate arrived at the right moment and did not exacerbate inflation, but that the reduction in the interest rate did not arrive at the wrong moment and so exacerbate unemployment.
	Those conditions are vital for any pursuance of the economic objectives of high social protection and so on to which the Economic Secretary drew our attention, but she gave no measure of our progress towards such convergence. In that respect, I found her speech extraordinary.

Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for his kind words about my appointment and for introducing a lighthearted note into the debate. I am glad that he had sufficient time in the election campaign to consider the state of the world economy. Perhaps he had slightly more time than he anticipated.
	Before considering the detailed points, many of which were interesting, it may be helpful to remind hon. Members of the motion, which asks the House to approve the Government's assessment in the Budget report of the medium-term economic and budgetary position. Passing the motion will enable the United Kingdom to make an effective contribution to multilateral surveillance in the European Union.
	I shall consider some of the detailed points that were raised during the debate, and begin with those of the hon. Member for West Dorset. He was right to point out that world growth has slowed. Indeed, as we projected in the Budget, the growth rate of the world's major economies is expected to halve this year. No country can insulate itself from world economic events, but the UK policy remains well placed to respond to economic developments. We have a framework that means that we are better able to cope with any downturn in the world economy. Nearly all commentators expect continued growth with low inflation in the UK. The assessments of the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are all in the range of 2.5 per cent. to 2.7 per cent. this year.

Oliver Letwin: Does the Economic Secretary accept that I did not challenge that? I asked whether current imbalances showed that the underlying economic trends were more worrying.

Ruth Kelly: I was about to tackle the numerous imbalances that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There were so many that I almost lost count; perhaps he will forgive me if I forget to mention a few.
	First, he mentioned the trade deficit. Perhaps he agrees that some increase is to be expected during an international slowdown. As he said, the trade deficit can readily be financed. The forecast in the Budget for the current account deficit is 2.25 per cent. of GDP this year, compared with a trade deficit of 4.25 per cent. under the previous Government in 1989. That did not prove difficult to finance. Total goods export volumes will be 5.5 per cent. higher this year than last year.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to the regional imbalance. The Government are taking action to improve regional economic growth with the new regional development agencies, which will play a key strategic role in driving economic development forward. In the 1980s, the Conservative Government stood back from promoting regional economic development. If they had a policy on the regions, it was to run down already disadvantaged areas so that they were in an even more desperate position.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the two-speed economy. Record employment growth clearly increased household wealth, and high consumer confidence is increasing consumer demand. As I said earlier, we cannot insulate ourselves from a downturn in the world economy, but the answer is not to massage the exchange rate down artificially, but to steer a course of stability through the economic slowdown.
	The hon. Gentleman made no suggestions for promoting a better economic policy. I was looking forward to hearing him spell out the way in which he would initiate 20 billion of spending cuts. However, he made no proposals.
	I suggest
	It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 18 July, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 June],
	That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 26th October, 2nd, 23rd and 30th November 2001, 11th, 18th and 25th January, 15th March, 12th and 19th April, 10th May, 21st June and 19th July 2002.[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed tomorrow.[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

PUNJABI COMMUNITY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

John McDonnell: Sat shri kal, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is a Punjabi greeting to commence the debate on the Punjabi community in Britain. I shall start by explaining the genesis of the debate. For some years in the late 1980s and the l990s, thanks to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), now the Minister for Transport, a number of MPs came together under the auspices of the all-party group on human rights in the Punjab. The group took up the concerns of the Punjabi community in Britain about the abuse of human rights in the Punjab resulting from the period of troubles in that region during the 1980s and early 1990s.
	In the last Parliament, in consultation with representatives of the Punjabi community, my colleagues and I widened the scope of the all-party group to enable it to represent in Parliament the Punjabi community on the full range of issues of concern to Punjabis in Britain. In March last year, members of the all-party group secured the first debate on the Punjabi community in Britain in thehistory of the British Parliament. Our aim as a group is to secure regular debates on the issues of concern to that community. Tonight's debate provides us with an opportunity to gauge progress on the issues that we raised in our debate last year and to draw attention to the agenda of issues and the programme of work that the all-party group has set itself for the forthcoming Session of Parliament.
	That agenda of issues has been drawn together on the basis of extensive consultation with organisations representing the Punjabi community in Britain. On all those issues we need the continuing attention and support of the Government. The agenda of issues to be addressed in the coming Session is therefore a direct reflection of the concerns of the Punjabi community in Britain and the debates of the all-party group.
	A prime issue of concern to the Punjabis in Britain, which we identified in last year's debate, is the operation of the visitor visa system. The whole community has welcomed the Government's reinstatement of the visa appeals process. In last year's debate, Members expressed anxiety about the possible introduction of a bond system, and the level of charges to be levied for appeals. It was greatly appreciated, therefore, when the Government dropped the proposals for bonds and subsequently reduced the charges for appeals.
	None the less, many of our constituents continue to experience considerable problems with the visa process. Time after time, visas are refused for family members, often grandparents travelling for weddings, funerals and the birthday celebrations of grandchildren. The system still works to divide families, often in the most heart-rending way. In many instances, the appeal process serves only to rubber stamp the initial decision of the entry clearance officer, and letters of support from MPs appear to count for very little.
	The all-party group proposes that an independent review of the visa system be undertakena short, sharp exercise to examine how fairly the system is operating, possibly involving an element of mystery shopping to test whether the process is equitable. The all-party group would be pleased to discuss with the Minister how that proposal could be implemented.
	In addition to visitor visas, constituents report continuing problems when seeking employment permits and visas for staff recruited in the Punjab. These problems have been experienced by priests and specialist teachers; even one of my local restaurants, the Saffron, which serves some of the best Indian cuisine in London, had a problem with securing the entry of a renowned Indian chef. We are aware that the Government have embarked on a debate about the future of work permits and employment quota systems, and this issue could possibly be addressed within the ambit of that discussion.
	In response to Members' requests, the Government have undertaken two further reforms in relation to visas and immigration, which were also highlighted in last year's debate. The first is the commencement this year of the scheme to register all immigration advisers. The scheme provides the opportunity not only to monitor and raise the standards of advice on visa and immigration procedures, but to drive out of existence the despicable crooks who prey on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The all-party group wholeheartedly endorses the new scheme.
	Another reform is the Government's proposal to establish a visa office in Jalandhar in Punjab where advice and assistance can be given to visa applicants. That measure responds to our plea in last year's debate, which was made on behalf of members of our constituents' families who have to undertake the long and expensive journey to Delhi in person. Sometimes up to 16 hours' travel is involved. However, in our meeting with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last week it was sad to learn that the proposal for the new visa office, which was submitted to the Indian Government some time ago, remains on Indian ministerial desks. I want to use tonight's debate to urge the Indian Government, in the friendliest terms possible, to expedite that important initiative. It would greatly assist all our constituents.
	Another focus of the all-party group's attention is support for Punjabi culture in this country. Our view is that its maintenance and promotion in Britain represents not an argument for separatism or preference, but a means whereby people who are confident in the understanding and knowledge of their own culture can better integrate and live harmoniously with those from different backgrounds and other cultures.
	In practice, we have interpreted that commitment as support in education for the first Sikh school in the history of this country. Guru Nanak school is in my constituency, and with the award of voluntary-aided status and associated funding from the Government, it is flourishing and securing some of the best educational results in Londonand in the rest of the country. However, demand for places vastly outstrips the number available, so we hope that the Government will give a sympathetic hearing to a bid for the much-needed expansion of the school in September. The catchment area goes beyond my constituency, covering Hounslow, Ealing and Slough.
	The Punjabi language is a key issue, which we addressed in last year's debate. Securing one's culture involves maintaining the ability to speak one's mother tongue, and ensuring that others have access to an understanding of one's history, culture and beliefs. The all-party group is keen to work with the Department for Education and Skills to advise on curriculum development in relation to the Punjabi community and Sikhism.

Fiona Mactaggart: As the Punjabi language is probably the second most spoken in this countryit is the first language for many peopleis it not important to give people in that community access to radio? The Minister is not responsible for that issue, but perhaps she will pass on to her colleagues in another Department the Punjabi community's eagerness to use the new access radio licences to provide radio through the medium of Punjabi. That would enable it to use radio licences to reinforce and develop the language.

John McDonnell: I am grateful for that intervention, and shall make a plea to the Government on the subject.
	The all-party group suggests that we assist in a survey of local education authorities to ascertain what support is provided for teaching Punjabi where parents request that facility. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is correct: with 1.3 million Punjabi speakers in Britain, Punjabi has become this country's second language. That wealth of Punjabi speakers is a real asset in a globalised economy, and I agree that the scale of Punjabi speaking in this country should be reflected in the support given to cultural outlets available to the Punjabi-speaking community.
	The best example is the limited number of radio stations broadcasting in Punjabi. Most are on short-term licences associated with the celebration of the Versaikhi period, but several excellent applications are being prepared by the Punjabi community. Last year the all-party group organised a seminar on radio licensing, and we believe that we might have facilitated the approach to the Government that will enable them to award new licences to Punjabi-speaking community organisations.
	Greater recognition is also needed to preserve and promote Punjabi sportkabbadi, for example, which is a form of what I can only describe as high-speed wrestling, or rugby without the ball. One day someone might explain the rules of kabbadi, which are complicated and brutal. The UK kabbadi federation is not even recognised by the visa office, and teams are often prevented from travelling to the UK from the Indian sub-continent. Many MPs have had to intervene on several occasions just to secure a player's entry to this country.
	An understanding of the history of the Punjab, especially the Sikh Khalsa, is critical to the maintenance of Punjabi culture. The recent celebration of the 300th anniversary of Versaikhi by institutions such as the Victoria and Albert museum did a great deal to promote a greater appreciation of that culture among both Sikhs and the general population. This year we will witness the celebration of the bicentenary of Maharajah Ranjeet Singh, and this month the VA has organised a seminar on Preserving the Sikh Heritage. The Sikh material heritage ranges from simple pieces produced in homage to Sikh gurus to precious art works and gems in museums and royal collections. The Koh-i-noor diamond, which is part of the Crown jewels, is a Sikh artefact given to Queen Victoriasome say under duressby the last Maharajah Duleep Singh.
	The all-party group is anxious to encourage a discussion of how this unique heritage can be preserved for future generations and made more accessible to the current generation. This is not an attempt to repatriate these objects, as with the Elgin marblesthe Queen can rest assured for the time being. Instead, we need to examine how co-operation between Governments and community organisations can best assist in preserving and holding in trust these priceless objects for the worldwide Sikh community.
	Another key agenda issue for the all-party group for the coming period is the development of economic links between Britain and the Punjab. Later this year, the group aims to host a seminar on the potential for economic development initiatives, which could be of mutual benefit, bringing together Government agencies, Punjab state bodies and private sector representatives from Britain and the Punjab. The objective is to examine what assistance can be provided to Punjabi commerce and agriculture, especially through enhanced opportunities for inward investment and for export via increased airport capacity. They also need help to tackle the increasing problem of water scarcity and diversion, and cropping policies in the Punjab.
	We remain interested in human rights issues. Undoubtedly, there are concerns about the Indian Government's failure to allow United Nations rapporteurs to enter the country and go to the Punjab. We will continue to press the matter until we secure a truth commissionor at least an extension of the remit of the Indian Human Rights Commissionto investigate the disappearance of large numbers of people throughout the 1980s during the crisis in the Punjab.
	That is a substantial agenda for an industrious all-party group, and we are addressing many other issues on behalf of the Punjabi community in Britain. We can succeed with that agenda only with the support of the Punjabi community, and the continuing support of the Government, which we are pleased to have received throughout their previous term of office and hope to receive throughout their present period of office.

Angela Eagle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing, for the second consecutive year, a debate on the Punjabi community in Britain. We still face many challenges on race relations. It is right to highlight the success of our many and varied communities. I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of the significant contribution that the Punjabi community makes to the economic and cultural life of this country.
	These debates provide an important opportunity for us to be reminded at first hand of community concerns, and my hon. Friend has set those out clearly. Last year, the difficulties that many members of the Punjabi community face in travelling to Delhi to apply for a visa were explained. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said in reply to last year's debate, the Government were aware of suggestions that there should be more visa issuing offices in the sub-continent and were examining the matter. As my hon. Friend was happy to report, in December we asked the Indian Government for their agreement to open visa liaison offices in Jalandhar in the Punjab and a similar office in Ahmadabad in Gujarat.
	We continue to press the Indian Government for approval for the offices, at which point we can begin to recruit and train locally employed staff. This matter was raised with the Indian Government on 21 June by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). I am happy to discuss with the all-party group the issue of visas and work permits, to see how we can make the system more user-friendly. I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support on the registration of some of the legal advisers, which is going ahead as a result of legislation passed recently.
	Human rights in the Punjab were mentioned. The situation has improved greatly since the troubles ended some eight years ago, and we recognise the need to ensure that all allegations of abuses are investigated. Ministers and officials have made clear to the Indian authorities the importance of investigating abuses and bringing wrongdoers to justice, and we have consistently urged those authorities to allow access to India for international human rights groups, including the United Nations rapporteurs on torture and on extrajudicial executions.
	We have also been trying to work with the authorities in a practical way. Through our high commission in New Delhi, we have been able to engage in some human rights project work in the Punjab that aims to improve police skills. Projects have involved co-operation between UK and Indian experts and the Punjabi police training college and have focused on child-friendly policing, policing for vulnerable groups and co-operation with youth clubs and children's groups.
	I agree with my hon. Friend that promoting an understanding between different cultures to tackle racism is central to our policy. We firmly believe in the importance of teaching young people the value of diversity and of a proper sense of society and their place in it. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced citizenship education to the national curriculum when he was Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
	The programme for the study of citizenship in secondary schools will be introduced as part of the national curriculum in September 2002. It is already in the primary curriculum, as part of personal social and health education. For the first time all pupils will be taught about the diversity of national, regional, religious and ethnic identities in the UK, and about the need for mutual respect and understanding.
	I will convey to the appropriate Department what my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said about Punjabi language radio licences.
	We believe that the measures we are introducing in schools will help to ensure that future generations grow up with a clear concept of citizenshipan understanding of the value of diversity, and a respect for individuals from different cultures and backgrounds. I know that those values are shared by the Punjabi community.
	We must ensure that communities have the skills and knowledge to make their views known. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, for example, the local authority has secured nearly 180,000 over three years to run a community development project under the community networks support programme of the Home Office connecting communities grant. The money will be used to establish a consortium of minority ethnic community organisations, which will act as advocates on behalf of member organisations and the communities they represent.

John McDonnell: One of the issues that we raised in last year's debate was the importance of funding for gurdwaras. We wanted to establish the principle that the connecting communities funds could be re-used to support them.
	Some of the discussions with community support organisations prompted consternation in the Punjabi community in Britain about the proscription of the International Sikh Youth Federation, which we envisaged as a key organisation working in the community for peace and harmony generally.

Angela Eagle: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the proscription of any organisation, but I assure him that this was not done lightly or without appropriate information. If my hon. Friend wants to make any other representations, I shall naturally be more than happy to hear them.
	Kabbadi sounds like an interesting sport. As one who suggested that chess should be classed as a sport and is still trying to achieve that aim after a number of years, I know how difficult it is to introduce new sports, especially those involving rough and tumble. I wish the Kabbadi Association in Britain well, and hope that the sport spreads.

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned kabbadi and the issue of civic education and giving responsibility to the community. One of the problems is that those messages are contradicted in practice by the way in which some people are treated when they seek entry to Britain as visitors. In New Delhi, more than in any other post on the subcontinent, would-be visitors are pre-sifted and not properly given a chance to make their case before an entry clearance officer. Perhaps my hon. Friend could encourage her colleagues in the Foreign Office to ensure that they advise those staff of the contradictory effect that their actions have on the feeling of success in the community here when their relatives are not even allowed to apply to visit.

Angela Eagle: I take my hon. Friend's point. In mitigation, all I would say is that the New Delhi post is especially busy and has a huge throughput. I will certainly draw my colleagues' attention to the points she has made. We need to look at work permits, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned, to see how we can achieve an appropriate balance and deal with everyone fairly, quickly and efficiently. That is often difficult to achieve, but I assure my hon. Friends that the ministerial team at the Home Office are spending much time considering how to do so.
	The debate has done much to remind us all of the importance and benefits of living in a diverse society, and it has reinforced the reminder given by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) during Tuesday's debate on Bradford that we must not lose sight of the considerable examples of success in many of our multi-ethnic communities. It is right to concentrate on problems, but it is also important to concentrate on the positive aspects of diverse community life. Therefore, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington on bringing this subject before the House.
	The Government welcome the positive contributions made by the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh members of the Punjabi community in Britain, and we all share the vision of a society free from prejudice in which differences between religions and ethnic communities are not only respected and valued, but celebrated and promoted. We will continue to work with the Punjabi community and all communities to ensure that that development continues. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in the House last week,
	The vast majority of people in our society, regardless of their ethnic background, want the same things for themselves and their children.[Official Report, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 664.]
	Our aim is to create an inclusive and fair society, and local communities that meet the needs of all groups.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.